Joanna LloydThe best rendition I've ever seen is the 2000 series by (I think) channel 4 with Helen McCrory as Anna, Douglas Henshall as Levin and Mark Strong as…moreThe best rendition I've ever seen is the 2000 series by (I think) channel 4 with Helen McCrory as Anna, Douglas Henshall as Levin and Mark Strong as Oblonsky. Really good casting especially McCrory. I first read the book in my mid teens and every 3 or 4 years since and this series respects all the relationships in the book. Not a cheap dvd although every couple of years, Yesterday channel repeats the series. Hope you enjoy it. (less)

As a daughter of a Russian literature teacher, it seems I have always known the story of Anna Karenina: the love, the affair, the train - the whole shebang. I must have ingested the knowledge with my mother's milk, as Russians would say.

............

My grandpa had an old print of a painting hanging in his garage. A young beautiful mysterious woman sitting in a carriage in wintry Moscow and looking at the viewer through her heavy-lidded eyes with a stare that combines allure and deep sadness. "WhoAs a daughter of a Russian literature teacher, it seems I have always known the story of Anna Karenina: the love, the affair, the train - the whole shebang. I must have ingested the knowledge with my mother's milk, as Russians would say.

............

My grandpa had an old print of a painting hanging in his garage. A young beautiful mysterious woman sitting in a carriage in wintry Moscow and looking at the viewer through her heavy-lidded eyes with a stare that combines allure and deep sadness. "Who's that?" I asked my grandpa when I was five, and without missing a beat he answered, "Anna Karenina". Actually, it was "A Stranger" by Ivan Kramskoy (1883) - but for me it has always remained the mysterious and beautiful Anna Karenina, the femme fatale of Russian literature.(Imagine my childish glee when I saw this portrait used for the cover of this book in the edition I chose!)

**

Yet, "Anna Karenina" is a misleading title for this hefty tome as Anna's story is just the tip of an iceberg, as half of the story is devoted to Konstantin Levin, Tolstoy's alter ego (Count Leo's Russian name was Lev. Lev --> Levin), preoccupied with Russian peasantry and its relationship to land, as well as torn over faith and his lack of it, Levin whose story continues for chapters after Anna meets her train.

But Anna gives the book its name, and her plight spoke more to me than the philosophical dealings of an insecure and soul-searching Russian landowner, and so her story comes first. Sorry, Leo Levin.

Anna's chapters tell a story of a beautiful married woman who had a passionate affair with an officer and then somehow, in her quest for love, began a downward spiral fueled by jealousy and guilt and societal prejudices and stifling attitudes.

"But I'm glad you will see me as I am. The chief thing I shouldn't like would be for people to imagine I want to prove anything. I don't want to prove anything; I merely want to live, to do no one harm but myself. I have the right to do that, haven't I?"

On one hand, there's little new about the story of a forbidden, passionate, overwhelming affair resulting in societal scorn and the double standards towards a man and a woman involved in the same act. Few readers will be surprised that it is Anna who gets the blame for the affair, that it is Anna who is considered "fallen" and undesirable in the society, that it is Anna who is dependent on men in whichever relationship she is in because by societal norms of that time a woman was little else but a companion to her man. There is nothing new about the sad contrasts between the opportunities available to men and to women of that time - and the strong sense of superiority that men feel in this patriarchial world. No, there is nothing else in that, tragic as it may be.

"Anything, only not divorce!" answered Darya Alexandrovna."But what is anything?""No, it is awful! She will be no one's wife, she will be lost!"

*

No, where Lev Tolstoy excels is the portrayal of Anna's breakdown, Anna's downward spiral, the unraveling of her character under the ingrained guilt, crippling insecurity and the pressure the others - and she herself - place on her. Anna, a lovely, energetic, captivating woman, full of life and beauty, simply crumbles, sinks into despair, fueled by desperation and irrationality and misdirected passion.

"And he tried to think of her as she was when he met her the first time, at a railway station too, mysterious, exquisite, loving, seeking and giving happiness, and not cruelly revengeful as he remembered her on that last moment."

A calm and poised lady slowly and terrifyingly descends into fickle moods and depression and almost maniacal liveliness in between, tormented by her feeling of (imagined) abandonment and little self-worth and false passions which are little else but futile attempts to fill the void, the never-ending emptiness... This is what Tolstoy is a master at describing, and this is what was grabbing my heart and squeezing the joy out of it in anticipation of inevitable tragedy to come.

"In her eyes the whole of him, with all his habits, ideas, desires, with all his spiritual and physical temperament, was one thing—love for women, and that love, she felt, ought to be entirely concentrated on her alone. That love was less; consequently, as she reasoned, he must have transferred part of his love to other women or to another woman—and she was jealous. She was jealous not of any particular woman but of the decrease of his love. Not having got an object for her jealousy, she was on the lookout for it. At the slightest hint she transferred her jealousy from one object to another."

Yes, it's the little evils, the multitude of little faces of unhappiness that Count Tolstoy knows how to portray with such sense of reality that it's quite unsettling - be it the blind jealousy of Anna or Levin, be it the shameless cheating and spending of Stiva Oblonsky, be it the moral stuffiness and limits of Arkady Karenin, the parental neglects of both Karenins to their children, the lies, the little societal snipes, the disappointments, the failures, the pervasive selfishness... All of it is so unsettlingly well-captured on page that you do realize Tolstoy must have believed in the famous phrase that he penned for this book's opening line: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Tolstoy is excellent at showing that, despite what we tend to believe, getting what you wanted does not bring happiness.

"Vronsky, meanwhile, in spite of the complete realization of what he had so long desired, was not perfectly happy. He soon felt that the realization of his desires gave him no more than a grain of sand out of the mountain of happiness he had expected. It showed him the mistake men make in picturing to themselves happiness as the realization of their desires. "

*

And yet, just like in real life, there are no real villains, no real unsympathetic characters that cause obstacles for our heroes, the villains whom it feels good to hate. No, everyone, in addition to their pathetic little ugly traits also has redeeming qualities. Anna's husband, despite appearing as a monster to Anna after her passionate affair, still is initially willing to give her the freedom of the divorce that she needs. Stiva Oblonsky, repulsive in his carelessness and cheating, wins us over with his gregarious and genuinely friendly personality; Anna herself, despite her outbursts, is a devoted mother to her son (at least initially). Levin may appear to be monstrous in his jealousy, but the next moment he is so overwhelmingly in love that it's hard not to forgive him. And I love this greyness of each character, so lifelike and full.

And, of course, the politics - so easily forgettable by readers of this book that carries the name of the heroine of a passionate forbidden affair. The dreaded politics that bored me to tears when I was fifteen. And yet these are the politics and the questions that were so much on the mind of Count Tolstoy, famous to his compatriots for his love and devotion to peasants, that he devoted almost half of this thick tome to it, discussed through the thoughts of Konstantin Levin.

*

Levin, a landowner with a strong capacity for compassion, self-reflection and curiosity about Russian love for land, as well as a striking political apathy, is Tolstoy's avatar in trying to make sense of a puzzling Russian peasantry culture, which failed to be understood by many of his compatriots educated on the ideas and beliefs of industrialized Europe.

"He considered a revolution in economic conditions nonsense. But he always felt the injustice of his own abundance in comparison with the poverty of the peasants, and now he determined that so as to feel quite in the right, though he had worked hard and lived by no means luxuriously before, he would now work still harder, and would allow himself even less luxury."

I have to say - I understood his ideas more this time, but I could not really feel for the efforts of the devoted and kind landowner striving to understand the soul of Russian peasants. Maybe it's because I mentally kept fast-forwarding mere 50 years, to the Socialist Revolution of 1917 that would leave most definitely Levin and Kitty and their children dead, or less likely, in exile; the revolution which, as Tolstoy almost predicted, focused on the workers and despised the loved by Count Leo peasants, the revolution that despised the love for owning land and working it that Tolstoy felt was at the center of the Russian soul. But it is still incredibly interesting to think about and to analyze because even a century and a half later there's still enough truth and foresight in Tolstoy's musings, after all. Even if I disagree with so many of his views, they are still thought-provoking, no doubts about it.

"If he had been asked whether he liked or didn't like the peasants, Konstantin Levin would have been absolutely at a loss what to reply. He liked and did not like the peasants, just as he liked and did not like men in general. Of course, being a good-hearted man, he liked men rather than he disliked them, and so too with the peasants. But like or dislike "the people" as something apart he could not, not only because he lived with "the people," and all his interests were bound up with theirs, but also because he regarded himself as a part of "the people," did not see any special qualities or failings distinguishing himself and "the people," and could not contrast himself with them."

========================It's a 3.5 star book for me. Why? Well, because of Tolstoy's prose, of course - because of its wordiness and repetitiveness.

Yes, Tolstoy is the undisputed king of creating page-long sentences (which I love, by the way - love that is owed in full to my literature-teacher mother admiring them and making me punctuate these never-ending sentences correctly for grammar exercises). But he is also a master of restating the obvious, repeating the same thought over and over and over again in the same sentence, in the same paragraph, until the reader is ready to cry for some respite. This, as well as Levin's at times obnoxious preachiness and the author's frequently very patriarchial views, was what made this book substantially less enjoyable than it could have been.

--------By the way, there is an excellent 1967 Soviet film based on this book that captures the spirit of the book quite well (and, if you so like, has a handy function to turn on English subtitles): first part is here, and the second part is here. I highly recommend this film.

Vessy"The great love" in this book never succeeded in exiting me. And I'm actually a big romantic. I really like love stories. But both Anna and Vronsky st"The great love" in this book never succeeded in exiting me. And I'm actually a big romantic. I really like love stories. But both Anna and Vronsky struck me as very unstable (I mean as personalities. I'm not talking about their emotional states). She decides to end her life, despite having something to live for. And this was a result of his treatment towards her. Had he been so amazingly in love, he would have wanted to be with her even when she was dawn and depressed, and not herself. But he wanted all to be great passion and when it turns out a relationship is based on more than that, he starts seeing her as a chore rather than as a partner.

For me they were just two people who didn't excell into appreciating what they had or could have. You're right on spot when you're saying that it was not so much about great feelings on their part as about trying to fulfill some void.

But I agree about the depth and the intensity of the story, And that's why I gave it 3 rather than 2 stars.

And I feel exactly like you do about the overlong, repeatative descriptions. At least I did at the time. I read this book when I was 16 and I haven't re-read it since....more
Feb 01, 2015 02:24PM

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.WARNING: This is not a strict book review, but rather a meta-review of what reading this book led to in my life. Please avoid reading this if you're looking for an in depth analysis of Anna Karenina. Thanks. I should also mention that there is a big spoiler in here, in case you've remained untouched by cultural osmosis, but you should read my review anyway to save yourself the trouble.

I grew up believing, like most of us, that burning books was something Nazis did (though, of course, burning DisWARNING: This is not a strict book review, but rather a meta-review of what reading this book led to in my life. Please avoid reading this if you're looking for an in depth analysis of Anna Karenina. Thanks. I should also mention that there is a big spoiler in here, in case you've remained untouched by cultural osmosis, but you should read my review anyway to save yourself the trouble.

I grew up believing, like most of us, that burning books was something Nazis did (though, of course, burning Disco records at Shea stadium was perfectly fine). I believed that burning books was only a couple of steps down from burning people in ovens, or that it was, at least, a step towards holocaust.

If I heard the words "burning books" or "book burning," I saw Gestapo, SS and SA marching around a mountainous bonfire of books in a menacingly lit square. It's a scary image: an image of censorship, of fear mongering, of mind control -- an image of evil. So I never imagined that I would become a book burner.

That all changed the day Anna Karenina, that insufferable, whiny, pathetic, pain in the ass, finally jumped off the platform and killed herself.

That summer I was performing in Shakespeare in the Mountains, and I knew I'd have plenty of down time, so it was a perfect summer to read another 1,000 page+ novel. I'd read Count of Monte Cristo one summer when I was working day camps, Les Miserable one summer when I was working at a residential camp, and Shogun in one of my final summers of zero responsibility. A summer shifting back and forth between Marc Antony in Julius Caesar and Pinch, Antonio and the Nun (which I played with great gusto, impersonating Terry Jones in drag) in Comedy of Errors, or sitting at a pub in the mountains while I waited for the matinee to give way to the evening show, seemed an ideal time to blaze through a big meaty classic. I narrowed the field to two by Tolstoy: War and Peace and Anna Karenina. I chose the latter and was very quickly sorry I did.

I have never met such an unlikable bunch of bunsholes in my life (m'kay...I admit it...I am applying Mr. Mackey's lesson. You should see how much money I've put in the vulgarity jar this past week). Seriously. I loathed them all and couldn't give a damn about their problems. By the end of the first part I was longing for Anna to kill herself (I'd known the ending since I was a kid, and if you didn't and I spoiled it for you, sorry. But how could you not know before now?). I wanted horrible things to happen to everyone. I wanted Vronsky to die when his horse breaks its back. I wanted everyone else to die of consumption like Nikolai. And then I started thinking of how much fun it would be to rewrite this book with a mad Stalin cleansing the whole bunch of them and sending them to a Gulag (in fact, this book is the ultimate excuse for the October Revolution (though I am not comparing Stalinism to Bolshevism). If I'd lived as a serf amongst this pack of idiots I'd have supported the Bolshies without a second thought).

I found the book excruciating, but I was locked in my life long need to finish ANY book I started. It was a compulsion I had never been able to break, and I had the time for it that summer. I spent three months in the presence of powerful and/or fun Shakespeare plays and contrasted those with a soul suckingly unenjoyable Tolstoy novel, and then I couldn't escape because of my own head. I told myself many things to get through it all: "I am missing the point," "Something's missing in translation," "I'm in the wrong head space," "I shouldn't have read it while I was living and breathing Shakespeare," "It will get better."

It never did. Not for me. I hated every m'kaying page. Then near the end of the summer, while I was sitting in the tent a couple of hours from the matinee (I remember it was Comedy of Errors because I was there early to set up the puppet theatre), I finally had the momentary joy of Anna's suicide. Ecstasy! She was gone. And I was almost free. But then I wasn't free because I still had the final part of the novel to read, and I needed to get ready for the show, then after the show I was heading out to claim a campsite for an overnight before coming back for an evening show of Caesar. I was worried I wouldn't have time to finish that day, but I read pages whenever I found a free moment and it was looking good.

Come twilight, I was through with the shows and back at camp with Erika and my little cousin Shaina. The fire was innocently crackling, Erika was making hot dogs with Shaina, so I retreated to the tent and pushed through the rest of the book. When it was over, I emerged full of anger and bile and tossed the book onto the picnic table with disgust. I sat in front of the fire, eating my hot dogs and drinking beer, and that's when the fire stopped being innocent. I knew I needed to burn this book.

I couldn't do it at first. I had to talk myself into it, and I don't think I could have done it at all if Erika hadn't supported the decision. She'd lived through all of my complaining, though, and knew how much I hated the book (and I am pretty sure she hated listening to my complaints almost as much). So I looked at the book and the fire. I ate marshmallows and spewed my disdain. I sang Beatles songs, then went back to my rage, and finally I just stood up and said "M'kay it!"

I tossed it into the flames and watched that brick of a book slowly twist and char and begin to float into the night sky. The fire around the book blazed high for a good ten minutes, the first minute of which was colored by the inks of the cover, then it tumbled off its prop log and into the heart of the coals, disappearing forever. I cheered and danced and exorcised that book from my system. I felt better. I was cleansed of my communion with those whiny Russians. And I vowed in that moment to never again allow myself to get locked into a book I couldn't stand; it's still hard, but I have put a few aside.

Since the burning of Anna Karenina there have been a few books that have followed it into the flames. Some because I loved them and wanted to give them an appropriate pyre, some because I loathed them and wanted to condemn them to the fire. I don't see Nazis marching around the flames anymore either. I see a clear mountain night, I taste bad wine and hot dogs, I hear wind forty feet up in the tops of the trees, I smell the chemical pong of toxic ink, and I feel the relief of never having to see Anna Karenina on my bookshelf again.

Jeremy PalmerI read War and Peace 20 years ago and it has long been my "favorite book," next to "Shogun." 20 years later and I read AK and find myself agreeing witI read War and Peace 20 years ago and it has long been my "favorite book," next to "Shogun." 20 years later and I read AK and find myself agreeing with this critic. It is an insufferable book with horrible characters and yes AK is a massive bitch and waiting for her to finally die was a pain in the ass. I liked this book 100 pages in and then hated it from then on....more
Jan 30, 2015 07:56PM

Jeremy PalmerI read War and Peace 20 years ago and it has long been my "favorite book," next to "Shogun." 20 years later and I read AK and find myself agreeing witI read War and Peace 20 years ago and it has long been my "favorite book," next to "Shogun." 20 years later and I read AK and find myself agreeing with this critic. It is an insufferable book with horrible characters and yes AK is a massive bitch and waiting for her to finally die was a pain in the ass. I liked this book 100 pages in and then hated it from then on....more
Jan 30, 2015 07:56PM

In the beginning, reading Anna Karenin can feel a little like visiting Paris for the first time. You’ve heard a lot about the place before you go. Much of what you see from the bus you recognize from pictures and movies and books. You can’t help but think of the great writers and artists who have been here before you. You expect to like it. You want to like it. But you don’t want to feel like you have to like it. You worry a little that you won’t. But after a few days, you settle in, and you feeIn the beginning, reading Anna Karenin can feel a little like visiting Paris for the first time. You’ve heard a lot about the place before you go. Much of what you see from the bus you recognize from pictures and movies and books. You can’t help but think of the great writers and artists who have been here before you. You expect to like it. You want to like it. But you don’t want to feel like you have to like it. You worry a little that you won’t. But after a few days, you settle in, and you feel the immensity of the place opening up all around you. You keep having this experience of turning a corner and finding something beautiful that you hadn’t been told to expect or catching sight of something familiar from a surprising angle. You start to trust the abundance of the place, and your anxieties that someone else will have eaten everything up before your arrival relax. (Maybe that simile reveals more about me than I’d like.)

My favorite discovery was the three or four chapters (out of the book’s 239) devoted to, of all things, scythe mowing—chapters that become a celebratory meditation on physical labor. When I read those chapters, I felt temporarily cured of the need to have something “happen” and became as absorbed in the reading as the mowers are absorbed in their work. Of course, the book is about Anna and Vronsky and Levin and Kitty and Dolly and poor, stupid Stepan Arkadyich. It’s about their love and courtship and friendship and pride and shame and jealousy and betrayal and forgiveness and about the instable variety of happiness and unhappiness. But it’s also about mowing the grass and arguing politics and hunting and working as a bureaucrat and raising children and dealing politely with tedious company. To put it more accurately, it’s about the way that the human mind—or, as Tolstoy sometimes says, the human soul—engages each of these experiences and tries to understand itself, the world around it, and the other souls that inhabit that world. This book is not afraid to take up any part of human life because it believes that human beings are infinitely interesting and infinitely worthy of compassion. And, what I found stirring, the book’s fearlessness extends to matters of religion. Tolstoy takes his characters seriously enough to acknowledge that they have spiritual lives that are as nuanced and mysterious as their intellectual lives and their romantic lives. I knew to expect this dimension of the book, but I could not have known how encouraging it would be to dwell in it for so long.

In the end, this is a book about life, written by a man who is profoundly in love with life. Reading it makes me want to live.

FreydisAmazing review! I could not have agreed more or explained it better myself.
Jan 22, 2015 01:04PM

Xuân RùaI totally felt and understood your words every single word. I love this novel truly. Simply its all the world. What i love the most is The way Leo TolI totally felt and understood your words every single word. I love this novel truly. Simply its all the world. What i love the most is The way Leo Tolstoy describes the tinny changes in Anna's emotions,feelings which is so great amazing. How great and poor Anna is!...more
Feb 24, 2015 09:48AM

People are going to have to remember that this is the part of the review that is entirely of my own opinion and what I thought of the book, because what follows isn't entirely positive, but I hope it doesn't throw you off the book entirely and you still give it a chance. Now... my thoughts:

I picked up this book upon the advice of Oprah (and her book club) and my friend Kit. They owe me hardcore now. As does Mr. Tolstoy. This book was an extremely long read, not because of it's size and length nePeople are going to have to remember that this is the part of the review that is entirely of my own opinion and what I thought of the book, because what follows isn't entirely positive, but I hope it doesn't throw you off the book entirely and you still give it a chance. Now... my thoughts:

I picked up this book upon the advice of Oprah (and her book club) and my friend Kit. They owe me hardcore now. As does Mr. Tolstoy. This book was an extremely long read, not because of it's size and length necessarily, but because of it's content. More often than not I found myself suddenly third a way down the page after my mind wandered off to other thoughts but I kept on reading... am I the only one with the ability to do that? You know, totally zoning out but continuing to read? The subject I passed over though was so thoroughly boring that I didn't bother going back to re-read it... and it didn't affect my understanding of future events taking place later on in the book.

Leo Tolstoy really enjoys tangents. Constantly drifting away from the point of the book to go off on three page rants on farming methods, political policies and elections, or philosophical discussion on God. Even the dialogue drifted off in that sort of manner. Tolstoy constantly made detail of trifling matters, while important subjects that added to what little plot line this story had were just passed over. Here is a small passage that is a wonderful example of what constantly takes place throughout the book:

No mention of the wasp is made again. Just a small example of how Tolstoy focuses much more on philosophical thought, and thought in general, more than any sort of action that will progress the story further. That's part of the reason the story took so long to get through.

The editing and translation of the version I got also wasn't very good. Kit reckons that that's part of the reason I didn't enjoy it as much, and I am apt to agree with her. If you do decide to read this book, your better choice is to go with the Oprah's Book Club edition of Anna Karenina.

The characters weren't too great either and I felt only slightly sympathetic for them at certain moments. The women most often were whiny and weak while the men seemed cruel and judgemental more often than not. Even Anna, who was supposedly strong-willed and intelligent would go off on these irrational rants. The women were constantly jealous and the men were always suspicious.

There's not much else to say that I haven't already said. There were only certain spots in the book which I enjoyed in the littlest, and even then I can't remember them. All in all I did not enjoy this book, and it earned the names Anna Crapenina and Anna Kareniblah.

But remember this is just one girl's opinion, if it sounded like a book you might enjoy I highly advise going out to read it. Just try and get the Oprah edition....more

Jeanette de MontalkHe was not Mr Tolstoy he was Count Tolstoy and he did not write for people with shallow minds
Jan 27, 2015 05:31PM

JillI have to say that I agree with most of what you've written in your review. However, I did enjoy this book, but not in the way other people did. I fouI have to say that I agree with most of what you've written in your review. However, I did enjoy this book, but not in the way other people did. I found it so funny that the characters would go on this loooooong ,sometimes self-discussion, to overanalyze a single action (a look, a smile, a word being said). I mean, really? I found it ridiculous and that's actually what kept me reading it.

Also, I was very curious about Russian literature at the time and this was probably my first Russian book ever. Having absolutely no background on the language, it took a while for me to understand their names and why they kept switching from the familiar to the formal version of pronouns and names. The ranting and long discussions .... Yes. It does get tedious after a while.

The overall portrayal of Russian society, politics, etc...kept me interested enough to finish the book. However, I probably would not read it again....more
Feb 09, 2015 12:31AM

In lieu of a proper review of my favorite book, and in addition to the remark that it would be more aptly named Konstantin Levin, I present to you the characters of Anna Karenina in a series of portraits painted by dead white men.

Anna Karenina (Lady Agnew of Lochnaw by John Singer Sargent)

Alexei Karenin (Portrait of Edouard Manet by Henri Fantin-Latour)

Alexei Vronsky (Study of a Young Man by John Singer Sargent)

Konstantin Levin (Robert Louis Stevenson and His Wife by John Singer Sargent

Kitty SchIn lieu of a proper review of my favorite book, and in addition to the remark that it would be more aptly named Konstantin Levin, I present to you the characters of Anna Karenina in a series of portraits painted by dead white men.

Anna Karenina (Lady Agnew of Lochnaw by John Singer Sargent)

Alexei Karenin (Portrait of Edouard Manet by Henri Fantin-Latour)

Alexei Vronsky (Study of a Young Man by John Singer Sargent)

Konstantin Levin (Robert Louis Stevenson and His Wife by John Singer Sargent

Mike GouldMolodets! I love what you have done. I only have one reservation. Robert Louis Stevenson as Levin? Levin is a strong, vigorous man whereas Stevenson wMolodets! I love what you have done. I only have one reservation. Robert Louis Stevenson as Levin? Levin is a strong, vigorous man whereas Stevenson was frail and sickly. Stevenson was sociable and charming whereas Levin is awkward and solitary....more
Jan 02, 2015 02:04PM

That seems to be the consensus for Levin... that I chose the wrong painting for him. I don't know much about SThanks, Stephanie, Chris, Eric and Mike.

That seems to be the consensus for Levin... that I chose the wrong painting for him. I don't know much about Stevenson, so my choice was mostly based on the mood of the painting. It seems to me that he's suffering some internal conflict, much like Levin was doing for most of the book. And I never imagined Levin as a strong, robust guy. He seems more the lanky, sinewy type to me, given his ascetic tendencies and long days of backbreaking work....more
Jan 06, 2015 05:17AM

Not since I read The Brothers Karamazov have I felt as directly involved in characters' worlds and minds. Fascinating.I was hooked on Anna Karenina from the opening section when I realized that Tolstoy was brilliantly portraying characters' thoughts and motivations in all of their contradictory, complex truth. However, Tolstoy's skill is not just in characterization--though he is the master of that art. His prose invokes such passion. There were parts of the book that took my breath because I reNot since I read The Brothers Karamazov have I felt as directly involved in characters' worlds and minds. Fascinating.I was hooked on Anna Karenina from the opening section when I realized that Tolstoy was brilliantly portraying characters' thoughts and motivations in all of their contradictory, complex truth. However, Tolstoy's skill is not just in characterization--though he is the master of that art. His prose invokes such passion. There were parts of the book that took my breath because I realized that what I was reading was pure feeling: when we realize that Anna is no longer pushing Vronsky away, when Levin proposes to Kitty, and later when Levin thinks about death. The book effectively threw a shroud over me and sucked me in--I almost missed my train stop a couple of times.That being said, there were some parts that were difficult to get through. I felt myself slowing down in Part VI. I was back in through the remainder of the book once I hit Part VII, but I understand how the deep dive into politics and farming can be off-putting. Still, in those chapters Tolstoy's characters are interacting, and it's incredible to see them speak and respond to one another. It's not only worth the trouble, but deep down, it's no trouble at all. It's to be savored, and sometimes we must be forced to slow down and think about the characters' daily life as they navigate around in their relationships.A word about this translation. When I was in college I attempted to read the Constance Garnett translation. I didn't stop because it was awful (I think finals came up, then the holidays, then more classes, etc.). However, I never really felt like the words were as powerful as they should have been. Years later, the only image that stuck in my mind was of Levin meeting Kitty at the ice skating rink. I just never really entered the world of Anna Karenina, perhaps my fault more than anything. However, the diction and sentence construction in Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation is poetic and justifies the title "masterpiece." Through this translation I grew to appreciate Tolstoy not just because he told good, philosophical stories, but because he could do so with utmost subtletly and compactness--yes, I think Tolstoy is concise. Each word has its place.Understandably, many are unwilling to give themselves to this book. Many expect it to do all of the work. But it's an even better read because if the reader works, the experience of reading this book is incredible....more

TrevorSurely the book's main thrust is the relationship between land owners and peasants. Each are obsessed with their lives and life styles while continuinSurely the book's main thrust is the relationship between land owners and peasants. Each are obsessed with their lives and life styles while continuing the habits and assumption of their class. Levin sees the ludicrous imbalance and try's to offer the peasants a better deal. Because they cannot see beyond their current status, they refuse the offer thinking it is some kind of trick, some kind of "adultery". Tolstoy knew that the wealth he and other land owners enjoyed was basically criminal but for the imaginative drafting of laws, but he also knew it would be one hell of a job to persuade the peasants. The book is a classic not because it describes love, betrayal, jealousy and daily pursuits, thousands of books have done that, but because it touches on the real fundamental cockeyed way we organise society, then and now....more
May 13, 2013 03:51AM

KatherineI really like your review! Especially how you were able to explain the writing of the author and his expression of the characters through their thoughI really like your review! Especially how you were able to explain the writing of the author and his expression of the characters through their thoughts and motives... I really found that to be well done.

Also the mention of certain points being boring (like the field part and some of the politics discussion which I didn't appreciate until the end)...

I also found the moments of feeling to be truly well expressed, the death of Levin's brother, all of Levin's feelings about Kitty, her shame and embarrassment, the meeting of Anna and Seryozha! Vronsky's love towards Anna. So many moments although so spread apart where an emotion was so well described that it was impossible not to be felt. Thank you for your review. It expresses beautifully what many wanted to say....more
Aug 04, 2014 06:00PM

Alright, I'm going to do my best not to put any spoilers out here, but it will be kind of tough with this book. I should probably start by saying that this book was possibly the best thing I have ever read.

It was my first Tolstoy to read, and the defining thing that separated what he wrote from anything else that I've read is his characters. His characters are unbelievably complex. The edition of this book that I read was over 900 pages, so he has some time to do it. His characters aren't staticAlright, I'm going to do my best not to put any spoilers out here, but it will be kind of tough with this book. I should probably start by saying that this book was possibly the best thing I have ever read.

It was my first Tolstoy to read, and the defining thing that separated what he wrote from anything else that I've read is his characters. His characters are unbelievably complex. The edition of this book that I read was over 900 pages, so he has some time to do it. His characters aren't static, but neither are they in some kind of transition from A to B throughout the book. They are each inconsistent in strikingly real ways. They think things and then change their minds. They believe something and then lose faith in it. Their opinions of each other are always swirling. They attempt to act in ways that align with something they want, but they must revert back to who they are. But who a character is is a function of many things, some innate and some external and some whimsical and moody.

So all the characters seem too complex to be characters in a book. It's as if no one could write a character that could be so contradictory and incoherent and still make them believable, so no one would try to write a character like Anna Karenina. But people are that complex, and they are incoherent and that's what makes Tolstoy's characters so real. Their understandings of each other and themselves are as incoherent as mine of those around me and myself.

One of the ways that Tolstoy achieves this is through incredible detail to non-verbal communication. He is always describing the characters movements, expressions, or postures in such a way that you subtly learn their thoughts.

He does an amazing job in the internal monologues the characters experience. You frequently hear a character reason with himself and reveal his thoughts or who he is to you in some way, and all the while you feel like you already knew that they felt that or were that. Even as the characters are inconsistent. There are times when he can describe actions that have major implications on the plot with blunt and simple words and it still felt rich because the characters are so full.

The book takes on love, marriage, adultery, faith, selfishness, death, desire/attraction, happiness. It also speaks interestingly on social classes or classism. He also addresses the clash between the pursuit of individual desires and social obligations/restraints. There is just so much to wrestle with here.

And you go through a myriad set of emotions and impressions of the characters as you read. At times you can love or hate or adore a character. You can be ashamed of or ashamed for or reviled by or anxious with or surprised by a character. And you feel this way about each of them at points. But it isn't at all a roller coaster ride of emotion. It's fluid and natural and makes sense.

One of the many points that the book seemed to reach to me was the strength and power of love. Tolstoy displays it in all its power and all its inability. In the end love is not sufficient enough to sustain. He writes tremendous triumphs for it, and then he writes the months after when the reality of human failings set in. But love is good, and there is hope. Life can be better with love in it. Should I have kids one day I think I'll make reading this book a precondition for them to start dating (that and turning 25).

I was also surprised by a section towards the end of the book where Tolstoy through Levin, my favorite character and the one that I identified with the most, makes a case for Christianity that was so simple but at the same time really impacted me. I guess I'll leave that alone here.

Basically, I don't have high enough praise for this book. I hope everyone reads it. It is very long, and I found the third quarter or so slow. But I could definitely read it again. Not soon but it could become a must read every 15 years or so for me. Between he nature of the content and the quality of the words, I would say that this is the greatest masterpiece in words that I've ever found. ...more

DennisBrett, that is one of the most insightful, well-written reviews I have ever read. Thank you so much.
Jul 04, 2013 11:47PM

MitaleedasI am only about 80-90 pp into it and I feel like I have entered a world I would like to live in for a long time with this exact set of characters forI am only about 80-90 pp into it and I feel like I have entered a world I would like to live in for a long time with this exact set of characters for friends...more
Nov 22, 2014 08:26AM

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Summer of 1985. My very manly brother, who rarely read classics, holding and reading a very thick book entitled Anna Karenina. “What is that thick book? Why is he interested on that?” I thought to myself. On the wall by his bed, was a big close up photograph of Sophie Marceau. Around that time, most teenage males in the Philippines were fans of this ever-smiling young lady and her poster was in their bedrooms. Our house was not an exemption. This was before my brother joined the US Navy. A decadSummer of 1985. My very manly brother, who rarely read classics, holding and reading a very thick book entitled Anna Karenina. “What is that thick book? Why is he interested on that?” I thought to myself. On the wall by his bed, was a big close up photograph of Sophie Marceau. Around that time, most teenage males in the Philippines were fans of this ever-smiling young lady and her poster was in their bedrooms. Our house was not an exemption. This was before my brother joined the US Navy. A decade after, Marceau played the title role in the most recent movie adaptation of this book. "Did my brother have a prior knowledge about it?" I again asked myself.

A couple of months back, my other brother gave me the link to The Top Ten: Writers Pick Their Favorite Books. In its list of The Top Ten Books of All Time, Anna Karenina topped it over the other great works: Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert; War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy; Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov; Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain; Hamlet by William Shakespeare; The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald; In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust; The Stories of Anton Chekhov by Anton Chekhov; and Middlemarch by George Eliot.

In random order: Anna Karenina is Norman Mailer’s #1, Tom Wolfe’s #4, David Lodge’s #7, Chris Bohjalian’s #4, Peter Carey’s #6, Alexander McCall Smith’s #1, Francine Prose’s #1, Reynolds Price’s #1. Tom Perrotta’s #2, Susan Minot’s #1 and Claire Messud’s #5. As you can see, many of those are men. For me, this is an indication that this book, even if the title bears a woman’s name and with flowers on its cover (at least this wonderful edition of mine), is not really a woman’s book.

Did my brother’s unusual interest on this book intrigue me during that time? Yes. Did The Top Ten list make me finally pick this up? Yes. Considering its length and the one full week of reading (aside from working), was reading this a waste of time that I could have spent reading shorter easier-to-read 2-4 books? Definitely, not. This unputdownable book is worth every minute that I spent on it. So far, in that Top 10 list, I have only read 3 (Lolita, War and Peace and The Great Gatsby) but I can say that Anna Karenina has all the right reasons to be there. However, this book is not for those readers who have no patience in reading thick books. Although for me the vast scope of 19th century Russia is interesting not only for the lifestyle of the people (in the same reason why Austen fans love her books) but also for its historical significance. The book’s milieu (1882-1886) was Russia on its crossroad: few decades later the country became Soviet (Communist) Russia from being Imperial Russia.

On its superficial level, the story is about Anna Karenina, a young wife of a Russian government official, Count Alexie who is 15 years her senior. Probably due to their age difference and the fact that theirs was an arranged marriage, they are not happy. This despite the fact that they already have a son. Enter a young handsome military man, Vronsky, who fell in love at first sight with Anna when his mother and she came to St. Petersburg together in a train. Vronsky courts her and the two become lovers and Anna gets pregnant. However, Count Alexie does not want to divorce Anna and asks her to still live with him as a punishment.

At that time in Russia, the offending party has the option to grant the divorce and this party takes the possession of the child. Anna cannot part with her son even if she becomes pregnant and later has child with Vronsky. The Imperial Russia at that time has this extreme double standard on morality and the society condemns Anna for sleeping with another man. This reminded me of Diana, Princess of Wales who, when she died in 1997, generated an unbelievable outpouring of public sympathy despite having lovers while still married to Prince Charles. Of course, there were lots of differences between the two but I just wondered what if Princess Diana were in Russia in 1882-1886, would she have generated the same level of public sympathy, let’s say she herself threw her body in front of the speeding train?

Parallel to Anna’s life in the book, is Levin’s. Konstantin Dimitrich Levin is a socially awkward but generous-hearted landowner who was first ditched by the woman she loves, Kitty but later wins her heart back. He witnesses the death of his brother, Nicolai Levin and that scene, for me, is the most poignant of all. Well, except the train incident where Anna killed herself. Levin’s life in the book is said to be based on the life of the author, Leo Tolstoy, including the way Tolstoy proposed to his wife in real life. The denouement chapter of the book where Levin realizes that Christianity is the same as the other beliefs in terms of salvation is like having the author Tolstoy sharing his own thoughts about religion and faith. It is the most stirring being philosophical part of the book. Another interesting chapter is the second to the last part with Anna’s stream-of-consciousness prior to committing suicide. This part is said to have inspired the next generation of writers (Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner, and James Joyce who are all my favorites) in the use of this literary technique.

For me, the main theme of the book is: we cannot be happy at the expense of other people. Happiness comes from within. We should not be happy because of other people’s unhappiness. In the story, Anna and Vronsky thought that they would be happy if they could live together. This did not make them thoroughly happy. Levin thought that having Kitty as his wife would make him happy. He was for awhile happy and yet later he still felt there was something still missing.

For the vast Russian panorama. For the strong interesting plot. For the way, Tolstoy developed his characters. For showing us the bits and details of Russian life in the 19th century. For the skillful handling of conflicts and providing stark contrasts. For timeless message on what life, happiness, marriage are all about, be it during his time or even now... I have no doubt that this novel deserves all those stars that Goodreads allows us readers to give.

I should have read this right away after my manly brother finished reading his copy a couple of decades ago....more

So, I have this ongoing etiquette problem. Though sometimes I think it is a matter of respect. Or maybe social awkwardness. I’d consult my Emily Post on the issue, but it’s a unique bookworm sort of problem. I don’t think Ms. Post got that deeply into the protocol of neurotic bibliophiles.

Anyway, the question is.. why do I unconsciously call an author by their first name sometimes? In some respects, I’ve had this conversation before in the context of gender. That is, are discussants more likelySo, I have this ongoing etiquette problem. Though sometimes I think it is a matter of respect. Or maybe social awkwardness. I’d consult my Emily Post on the issue, but it’s a unique bookworm sort of problem. I don’t think Ms. Post got that deeply into the protocol of neurotic bibliophiles.

Anyway, the question is.. why do I unconsciously call an author by their first name sometimes? In some respects, I’ve had this conversation before in the context of gender. That is, are discussants more likely to assume a first name basis when conversing about women authors rather than male authors? If so, does this mean a sign of disrespect? What about when this happens as a discussion among women? Is this more or less problematic? It also, obviously, happens sometimes with two authors by the same name, or with an author that someone happens to know personally.

But my question doesn't just have to do with this situation. I'm more interested as to why readers feel the impulse to do this to start with. The answer I've come up with is maybe an obvious one, but its worth stating: the emotional bond that a good book can seem to create in a reader’s mind with that author. This emotional bond can resemble love or hatred, respect, anger or sadness or can even simply result from spending some time with a comedian who has told enough, “you know how when,” jokes that you recognize. But on some level you feel you understand where they’re coming from. But its hard to pinpoint when that happens. Usually, for me, I only see it when I write my review. Usually I self-consciously delete it later once I realize it. As if I think that I’m like someone who met a movie star in a fast food restaurant and then decided to gush to everyone about how we were destined to be BFFs because it turned out that we had ordered the same kind of fries. But it is always revealing of how much the novel got to me. Virginia Woolf is the ultimate example of this for me. My experience with Mrs. Dalloway was like breaking through a wall into a party I’d always been invited to with close friends. I had the same experience with Austen and the Brontes and Graham Greene and a few others.

I wasn’t expecting to add another to this collection with Tolstoy. I've read this before, but that time my impression of Tolstoy as an intimidating, distant Big Russian Author intact. This read was different. I believe that the translation work of Paevar and Volokhonsky deserves credit for that. My first read was with the Garnette translation. However, as the NYRB notes, Garnett morphed Tolstoy’s words into “graceful late-Victorian prose,” as she did to every other Russian author she translated. And unfortunately, it turns out that graceful late-Victorian prose reads rather… well.. like it sounds like it might. Intelligently done, but often intimidating and cold. Thus, despite the fact that her work may have made Tolstoy’s work “accessible” to a Victorian audience, her work did a disservice to Tolstoy for me. Because that Victorian sensibility… that’s not Tolstoy. At least, it is not the Tolstoy that Paevar and Volokhonsky showed me. I’m glad that I gave this book a second chance, because this time Tolstoy became Leo a couple times. If my self-consciousness reasserted itself immediately and he became Tolstoy again, that’s okay. I remember those Leo moments.

There are many things I loved about this novel. I think what got me most, however, is something that’s based in the process of its creation. As I understand it, writing this novel was a great struggle for Tolstoy. Originally, he meant this to be a straightforward morality tale. Anna was meant to be an ugly, vulgar old adulteress who represented Evil Womankind, and Karenin a model of sainted Christianity. But the longer the writing went on, the more this black and white purpose acquired shades of grey. Anna became beautiful, then sympathetic at the beginning, and then in the middle, and then all the way into the end. Karenin became clueless, hypocritical, desperate, and even “unmanly”. Vronsky no longer twisted his mustache, but became a man with a code who wanted very much to be allowed to keep that code and live a life. The morals became increasingly tangled until his original purpose became almost-yes, we’ll get there- unrecognizable. He found his way from rigid morality to what makes a tragedy a tragedy.

Tolstoy just can’t bring himself to judge these people. There are moments where he shows that he could have gone full on Oscar Wilde if he wanted to, but he takes it back. For every cutting remark, there’s an apologetic attempt to reach out and embrace everyone a few paragraphs later. There’s a wonderful quality of generosity that runs through the whole novel. Judge not, lest ye be judged. It seems to have slowly eaten away at original purpose until there wasn’t anyone I could bring myself to blame. Some of them I sympathized with from the beginning-Anna, Dolly, Levin- and some snuck up on me-Karenin, Kitty- and some-Vronsky, Oblonsky- took me awhile, but I got there. The book is set up as a dance where these seven people come together, go through the motions and then change partners again. How they come together, why, and what the two partners want from each other in that moment reveals everything about these two characters. As our two anchors who represent the two choices that you can come to resolve the existential crises of life, Levin and Anna get to meet everyone and everyone gets to reflect them back to themselves. Other characters experience them and make their own choices by evaluating their experience. Their resolutions represent the spectrum of other choices that you can make in between Ecstasy (starts as Anna, moves to Levin) and Death (which moves from Levin to Anna). The dance climaxes when Levin and Anna meet and the author finally allows himself to face the powerful woman he’s created and see what he thinks of her. What happens in the scene is beautiful and makes a lot of sense. I hated what he did it to it afterwards, which read like someone desperately afraid that they had revealed too much (we’ll get there), but it doesn’t negate what happens when we see that opposites are more alike than we’d like to think. Like that circle you always see done with fascism and communism-in-reality where despite whatever they may say, they are not the opposites that they claim.

You’ll notice that seven is an odd number. Someone is always going to be left on the outside, or being the third wheel to one of the pairs. Everyone has a turn with this. Anna starts it, then Levin continues it, then Kitty, then Karenin and full circle until we come back to Anna standing by herself once again. Through the odd man out, we get an exploration of how loneliness, rejection, and mistaken choices to reject others affect these characters. The two choices seem to be either that it will transform them, or that it will gradually harden the worst parts about them until they become an unbreakable diamond. Kitty’s time in Europe is perhaps the most through exploration of this phenomenon. Tolstoy allows her to break and reform and then reform again until she’s able to give herself permission to be herself again. Not everyone is lucky enough to have the space and time to do that. Levin gets to do it eventually. I’d even argue that Vronsky almost gets to that point time and time again. Anna is the diamond. Karenin shatters to pieces and then rebuilds himself into one again. Surprisingly, in the end, Karenin was the one who broke my heart.

He shows these peoples' attempts at understanding each other and failing again and again. It's revealing that he has this tendency have these characters look at each other just “seem to express” deep, extensive feelings with their eyes or with mundane trivialities. Characters frequently make assumptions that other people are mind-readers or that they are, and some even go so far as to tell them so. “I can tell that you think that I…” or “Her eyes told me that…” etc. It seems like he can’t think of a way that these people can be honest with each other and just say these things that they are dying to convey to each other, so they have to make all these assumptions. The ones who can communicate with each other are the ones who drive the novel- Anna, Levin, Kitty. Our author stand-in, Levin, is the most socially anxious being. He frequently doubts every word that comes out of his mouth, blushes and embarrasses himself with his boyish pride, and puts his foot in his mouth on about a million occasions. Anna and Karenin’s inability to speak to each other just the few words that would have stopped this whole thing on about chapter ten is a more serious version of this. Levin’s older brother and his almost love affair with Kitty’s friend and one wrong word spoken that changed their lives is a lightly amusing version. But all these little moments add up to a more thorough condemnation of social conventions than (view spoiler)[anybody throwing themselves under a train at the end could possibly have managed (hide spoiler)]. Only Connect in eight hundred pages at full volume. Only a few people manage it, and usually not for long. He shows us why succeeding is a gift, not something that we can take for granted.

And as for the writing… Tolstoy gets away with so much that other authors can't. He tells rather than shows for at least half the novel, and that is a conservative estimate. He repeats himself constantly. He chooses isolated moments and lets them go on for fifty pages longer than anyone on earth needs. Levin and Kitty’s wedding ceremony takes six chapters in my version. A two day hunting trip takes twice that. Ultimately, his writing isn’t that quotable out of context, except for that famous bit about happy families. Why? I can’t tell you. But Woolf can:"For it has come about, by the wise economy of our nature, that our modern spirit can almost dispense with language; the commonest expressions do, since no expressions do; the most ordinary conversation is often the most poetic... For which reasons we leave a great blank here, which must be taken to indicate that the space is filled to repletion.”

The commonest expressions thrown together in the right order and with the right kind of passion. That’s Tolstoy all over.

But I know we’re going to have to talk about that end. That is, what he does to Anna because he could not himself decide what he wanted her to be, and really what he wanted himself to be. Even his generosity failed him here. He chose to take Anna’s rebellion against her circumstances and grind it down until it became the scratchings of a selfish, spiteful cat. He went gloriously, full-tilt into a wall wrong, but it was wrong. It seemed like his original stern morality got the best of him. At first, I wanted to think that it was just a plot mechanics decision in the sense that Anna was the big outlier in the story and social structure, and the way he had written the people around her there was no way for anyone to move forward unless she herself changed. Whatever Anna’s story was about, it was not about how love conquers all because Tolstoy doesn’t believe that. That couldn’t be the end. She couldn’t go back to Karenin, because that would have been an even bigger betrayal. But in the end, I think that I'm wrong and it was just him feeling like he had to condemn her for her sins in the end. He couldn't let it be about what he said it was the whole novel because that was too dangerous.

And it wasn’t just Anna’s ending that I had an issue with. Levin’s, too. There are things to love about it, but it also (view spoiler)[ felt like the kind of resolution that you write when you’ve got someone very powerful standing over your shoulder, tapping his steel toed boot on the floor. Levin had some powerful questions about how you go on through the muck and be happy when you know there’s so much evil around you. About how to rationally believe in God as a man of science. Tolstoy shows us that his domestic happiness isn’t enough to negate these questions. And then suddenly, it is, because it’s the end of the novel and he can’t just leave his audience with anything less than God is Good. (hide spoiler)] Lastly, I really did not like what he did with that scene where Anna and Levin meet and (view spoiler)[ find each other sympathetic. It makes sense that they would. Why must Anna become the witch who ensorcelled him in order to keep pure Levin’s hands clean? It’s insultingly dishonest in a book that otherwise makes a point of truth telling. I know why, actually. It’s about the two things that came above. But I'm still not a fan. (hide spoiler)].

But still. I can mostly forgive Tolstoy for what he did to Anna and Levin and their complex struggles because of one thing: his joy. Even when his generosity of spirit uncharacteristically fails him with Anna, or when powerful intellect goes off the rails toward crazytown with Levin and his peasant-worship, he has this great ability to celebrate things great and small. This is most evident in the Levin sections where we get long odes to the harvest and to his love for Kitty. He gets perhaps the most genuinely sweet proposal scene I’ve ever read, and his depiction of sheer ecstasy after his success left me smiling for hours. And really, despite the all that earnest, existential angst and all the terror of death, the ultimate conclusion that I think Tolstoy wants me to walk away with from that last Levin chapter is Life. Even with the problems with it I mentioned above, its such a relief to see Levin finally just let himself rest that its difficult to hate it completely. And Levin isn’t the only one who gets to experience the joy. Kitty gets to be wrapped up on it. Oblonsky walks around with an apparently unshakeable foundation of it. Vronsky and Anna even get pieces of it sometimes, in their love for each other, in Vronsky’s love of horses and Anna’s for her children. One of Karenin’s problems is that he never sees the value in joy. Tolstoy complements this with a sly sense of humor that sneaks into the prose in between the other seven hundred and fifty pages of Seriously Considering the World. He’s got some great bits about his own misconceptions about marriage and the absurd things jealousy leads us to do. He pokes fun at men showing off their manliness to each other. He has some fun with mysticism, laughs about the ridiculousness of politics. He makes me laugh with the extremes to which he carries his insistence that we think about the feelings of everybody. Including the dog. Twice. I mean, could you be so insensitive as to forget how it inconveniences the dog when you’re disorganized getting out the door in the morning? You monsters!

In the end, it’s just all out there, you know? Awhile ago, I saw Jon Stewart give a speech in tribute to Springsteen. I forget the occasion, but I’ve always remembered one part of what he said, which is that Springsteen is great because whenever he is on stage, he doesn’t hold back. You know that when he walks out he’s going to be going all out, one hundred percent of the time, and when he’s done, he’s left it all on the field. But this isn’t in a reality show culture flash inappropriate body parts and explore the outer reaches of vulgarity kind of way. It’s just more the sense you have that he has worked through the problems that he presents to you as long and as hard as he can. He’s mustered up all the blood, sweat and tears that he has to present it to you, and there aren’t any bon mots he’s saving for the cocktail party later. This book is a book of statements, but it feels like a book of questions. Do you know any better?

Often, with Tolstoy, I think that a lot of us feel like we do. With rare exceptions, he deals with everything on earth as if it is the most serious thing alive. We know about “don’t worry, be happy.” He’s got a lot of anxiousness about his dealings with women, and some extremely silly ideas about Women in general. We can even feel that we know better about communism, idealization of manual labor or even just his ideas about cooperative farming. But still, he’s got those big questions about everything and he insists that they matter. He’s so wonderfully earnest from the beginning until the very end. He reminds me of David Foster Wallace, in that respect. That Consider the Lobster essay, with all that serious questioning and pain, thrown out to the readers of Gourmet. He feels like the inheritor of this fearsome intellect/earnest straightforwardness duality. Both these guys are really asking. This was a surprisingly vulnerable book in that way. For every opinion Tolstoy pronounced, he retracted two and asked four questions. That is the sort of mind I want to be around. Does this all come down to “but he means so well”? No. Maybe. A little bit. But his amazing writing ability, his sharp insight, and his ability to reason through as far as he could go are powerful enough that I will always let it go.

I’m excited for my next Tolstoy read. He rambled at me for eight hundred pages, and I can’t wait for eight hundred more. What’s up, War and Peace? As my favorite cartoon monkey said, “It is time.”["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>...more

JessicaSparrow wrote: " the feeling of comfort I get in watching Dexter, I pass on to the serial killer deputy. Even though it makes no actual sense becauseSparrow wrote: " the feeling of comfort I get in watching Dexter, I pass on to the serial killer deputy. Even though it makes no actual sense because intellectually, I know that I am attracted to him because he looks like a serial killer!..."

*giggle* Am I allowed to laugh at this story?...more
Jan 02, 2013 08:24AM

SparrowI need to get my hands on some Homeland episodes! They have been difficult for me to find, though.

Jessica wrote: "*giggle* Am I allowed to laugh at thI need to get my hands on some Homeland episodes! They have been difficult for me to find, though.

Jessica wrote: "*giggle* Am I allowed to laugh at this story?"

It is intended to laugh at. And I totally talked to him for a while today. *unhealthy swoon!*...more
Jan 02, 2013 05:28PM

Leo Tolstoy portrays the search for love and the ways in which love are found and lost. His famous opening sentence—“All happy families are alike but an unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion” -– predicts the symmetrical structure of his story and the comparison and dissimilarity of multiple couples searching for elusive happiness. Each character must face a desire that liberates or enslaves, enlightens or dims, and which bestows happinessWhat is it you want from me? “I want your love."

Leo Tolstoy portrays the search for love and the ways in which love are found and lost. His famous opening sentence—“All happy families are alike but an unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion” -– predicts the symmetrical structure of his story and the comparison and dissimilarity of multiple couples searching for elusive happiness. Each character must face a desire that liberates or enslaves, enlightens or dims, and which bestows happiness or wretchedness. Despite the sweeping categorization of his opening sentence, Tolstoy also admits that, “if there are as many minds as there are heads, then there are as many kinds of love as there are hearts.”

In pursuit of passionate love, Anna—a Shakespearean character- flings her heart at Vronsky with reckless abandon. The disintegration of our tragic hero is a frightening Greek tragedy that evokes catharsis—a purging of pity and fear. This courageous woman becomes consumed with jealousy, insecurity and paranoia. Her sole purpose is to please Vronsky, but having expended her self respect, she takes a desperate leap at a train station to restore dignity and self-control. Who among us has not fiercely loved another who did not return our love with equal measure? Anna leaps for love. Mid-leap, she realizes that her lover is no longer leaping with her, and she plunges downward without a hand to hold. Many of us, remembering the unequal bondage of love, will identify with Anna, who bestows her ardent heart without reservation.

Levin searches for meaning, but insecurities and existential thoughts plague him. Death whispers into his young ear. Scrupulosity and judgmentalism afflict Levin, who has a puritanical streak. The voices inside torment him:

No, you’re not going to get away from us; you’re not going to be different You’re going to be the same as you always have been ---with your doubts, your perpetual dissatisfaction with yourself and vain attempt to amend, your failures and everlasting expectation of a happiness you won’t get and which isn’t possible for you. This was what the voices said, but another, inner voice was telling him not to submit to the past, telling him that he can make what he will of himself.

Yet, he wrestles with his conscience, and he observes the happy and harmonious peasants. Later, he feels that, in the depths of his heart, something was settling down and composing itself. Levin alone rises --as suggested by his name. Coming to understand that reason must coexist with revelation, Levin represents the spiritual struggles of Tolstoy, who encourages us to believe that we might endure the paradox of existence and that we might find contentment for our raging desires.

Obtaining our heart’s desire is sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse. For Levin, a spiritual odyssey produces contentment and the taming of desire. For Vronsky, fulfillment of desire will provoke a cloying sensation that interrupts the adrenaline rush of chasing desire to which he is addicted. For Anna, realizing her desire will lead to enslavement. Ultimately, self-knowledge is critical:“You can’t get away from yourself.”

Tolstoy blesses us with short chapters and a plot that speeds like a train through 850 pages. Throughout the journey across the Russian steppe, from St. Petersbrug to Moscow, we pause at stations where we discuss socialism, religion, politics, peasants and agriculture. These passages may bore or delight readers, depending on their patience and inclination. Additionally, Tolstoy punctuates his rapid plot with lyrical digressions about weddings, hunting parties, and harvests.

Love is surrender, but not all surrenders are equal. Some involve capitulation and groveling. Ideally, love unites equals without victors or vanquished. Yet, all relationships exhibit a degree of imbalance that threatens most those burdened with an ardent-heart. I surrender to Tolstoy, who with Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and Dickens are my fathers. ”But what is to be done? What can I do? He asked himself despairingly and found no answer…. There was no answer, except life’s usual answer to the most complex and insoluble questions. The answer is this: live from day to day.” I revoke my desire to write the perfect review, because I recognize that the perfect review, like the answers to life, are unattainable. I content myself with the present and the real rather than torment myself with what I cannot posses. I resolve to live and to enjoy that which surrounds me. Tolstoy teaches me this.

As I read, I did not judge. I watched. Sometimes, I cringed. To me, the appropriate responses to this tragedy are mercy and forgiveness. I also grant grace, and I resolve to be gentle with myself. “Pardon me not according to what I may deserve but according to Thy lovingkindness.” Inevitably, others will judge us. May our judges look upon our love rather than upon our sin. May they crush us with mercy.

SteveHaha, I guess I've just been too busy with other things, Steve. Not all of it has been nose to grindstone, though. We just got back from a dream vacatHaha, I guess I've just been too busy with other things, Steve. Not all of it has been nose to grindstone, though. We just got back from a dream vacation in Oz -- a very welcome respite from winter in Chicago.

Good to see that you still have a lively presence around these parts. Dare we hope for even more reviews? If only you had the time, right?...more
Feb 05, 2015 08:23PM

What turned out to be the most interesting to me as I devoured this lush book was Tolstoy's amazing ability to show how we change our minds, or how our minds just do change -- how enamored we become of a person, a place, a whole population, an idea, an ideal -- and then how that great love, which seemed so utterly meaningful and complete, sours or evaporates just days, hours, or even minutes later -- in short, how truly fickle we are. And at the same time, each of the characters was in some wayWhat turned out to be the most interesting to me as I devoured this lush book was Tolstoy's amazing ability to show how we change our minds, or how our minds just do change -- how enamored we become of a person, a place, a whole population, an idea, an ideal -- and then how that great love, which seemed so utterly meaningful and complete, sours or evaporates just days, hours, or even minutes later -- in short, how truly fickle we are. And at the same time, each of the characters was in some way stable -- they had their particular drives, their needs, their anxieties, which gave their changing passions some kind of coherence and thus gave themselves their "selves."

Tolstoy's ability to capture the tiny thoughts that the characters themselves were perhaps unaware of -- preconscious material consisting largely of rationalizations and fears, but also sometimes of genuine compassion -- and to present these thoughts with precision, subtle irony, and tenderness -- was a great delight. (He deals in this preconscious material rather than in unconscious material -- there is nothing symbolic or metaphorical in his writing -- he writes quite naturally of "things as they are." My partner and I enjoyed contrasting him with Kafka.)

I also am very glad that I read an unabridged version. Some of my favorite parts of the book didn't involve the title character -- I loved the mowing and hunting sections -- these were the parts where true joy (and meaning, as Levin finds) were found. And I think these are the parts not included in abridged versions. ...more

FeliciaOh golly, Miss Dia, you have joined the ranks of "all of my friends turn into shrinks". That is a compliment and it's not backhanded even though it prOh golly, Miss Dia, you have joined the ranks of "all of my friends turn into shrinks". That is a compliment and it's not backhanded even though it probably sounds that way. Also, I received your wedding invite -- Mazel Tov! And am hoping to be there, even though I haven't sent my card back (I just moved, and it's misplaced in the jumble). Our minds DO change, don't they? Perhaps this is why I'm a great love of the stalk, of the unattainable -- so I never have to feel the sourage. Something that never is never spoils -- or, at least its shelf life is usually longer....more
May 03, 2008 01:09AM

When I first completed this book, I sat down at my computer and attempted to review it, and all I could come up with was,

“F*ck you, Tolstoy!!”

I know that sounds juvenile, but I still have that feeling. I’m so ANGRY with him for what he did to Anna. I’m so angry that we were barely given a chance to know her. (Yes, I'm aware that she's a fictional character who never actually exRead the end of Anna Karenina and listen to this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mUmdR...

It’ll break your heart.

When I first completed this book, I sat down at my computer and attempted to review it, and all I could come up with was,

“F*ck you, Tolstoy!!”

I know that sounds juvenile, but I still have that feeling. I’m so ANGRY with him for what he did to Anna. I’m so angry that we were barely given a chance to know her. (Yes, I'm aware that she's a fictional character who never actually existed. So? She was real to me!) We learn that she’s beautiful and at the same time very insecure. We learn that she is married, but not happily so. We learn that she is a devoted mother to her son, but not to her daughter. We never really get to learn about the depths of Anna. It’s always Anna in relation to a man. Anna and her husband. Anna and Vronsky. Anna and her son. I guess that speaks to the position of women in society during that time period. Women had no identity of their own.

What I enjoyed most about this book was Tolstoy's ability to allow the reader to get inside the heads of the characters. We learn so much about them through their thoughts -- their fears, their insecurities, their secrets. By enabling us to connect to the internal dialog of the characters, we are introduced to their humanity. As a reader on the outside looking in, I got so annoyed when a character would put so much emphasis on a look or the tone of voice or a gesture of another. But don't we all do that? Isn't that how we experience the world? Unfortunately, often our assumptions about what a look means or a tone of voice means is inaccurate at best. When we ascribe meaning to these little behavioral nuances (which we all do based on our own baggage, right?) we're saying very little about the other person and everything about ourselves. Tolstoy takes his message to the extreme, sure, but it certainly made me sit back and really think about what I assume about others verses the reality of that person.

This book also got me thinking long and hard about what one prioritizes in life. Is it enough to be comfortable and stable, if that comfort and stability mean you are also lonely and dissatisfied? Should we follow our desires and damned be the consequences, no matter what dark rabbit hole they might lead us down? I have to ask myself, am I an Anna or a Kitty? Comfort and contentment or drama and romance: neither of which leaves a person completely satisfied. I don't have any answers. Just many many more questions.

The days are short and the nights are cold and stretch out for an eternity. It's the perfect time to pick up this novel, snuggle in and enjoy the world Tolstoy created for you.

Five bright, gleaming stars...

*** A note about this edition: Luckily I was forewarned NOT to read the introduction before reading the book. The introduction will give away key elements of the plot and thus ruin any surprises the book may have in store for you if you are fortunate, as I was, to not have the ending spoiled for you already. ...more

Yeganeh AttariHi, I was wondering why u removed me from ur friends :-? I mean, was I doing u any harm? I really liked ur reviews and I even recommended them to variHi, I was wondering why u removed me from ur friends :-? I mean, was I doing u any harm? I really liked ur reviews and I even recommended them to various avid readers in my friend-zone.Is it because I'm Iranian? or sth like that? :-?It would be nice if u let me know abt it.I'm just curious, and a tad offended :-)Tnx.(P.S. Sorry I commented on ur review of Anna Karenina, its where i first came 2 know u. And there was no way 2 send u a msg.)...more
Jun 09, 2014 12:47AM

Jenn(ifer)Sorry Yeganeh -- I must have deleted you accidentally. I didn't mean to offend you.
Jun 09, 2014 06:25AM

This is a book that I was actually dreading reading for quite some time. It was on a list of books that I'd been working my way through and, after seeing the size of it and the fact that 'War And Peace' was voted #1 book to avoid reading, I was reluctant to ever get started. But am I glad that I did.This is a surprisingly fast-moving, interesting and easy to read novel. The last of which I'd of never believed could be true before reading it, but you find yourself instantly engrossed in this kindThis is a book that I was actually dreading reading for quite some time. It was on a list of books that I'd been working my way through and, after seeing the size of it and the fact that 'War And Peace' was voted #1 book to avoid reading, I was reluctant to ever get started. But am I glad that I did.This is a surprisingly fast-moving, interesting and easy to read novel. The last of which I'd of never believed could be true before reading it, but you find yourself instantly engrossed in this kind of Russian soap opera, filled with weird and intriguing characters. The most notable theme is the way society overlooked mens' affairs but frowned on womens', this immediately created a bond between myself and Anna, who is an extremely likeable character. I thought it had an amazing balance of important meaning and light-heartedness. Let's just say, it's given me some courage to maybe one day try out the dreaded 'War And Peace'....more

KellenCurrently reading this and your review is making me excited! This review could also apply to Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I was nervous to read it bCurrently reading this and your review is making me excited! This review could also apply to Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I was nervous to read it because of the size but I read it in a week and a half, and it is now my favorite book....more
Jan 08, 2015 10:14AM

I read this book for the first time about 5 years ago and I loved it back then. I picked it up again last week and was very curious to see if it would still be amongst my favourite classics. Now that I have finished it, I can say with confidence that it is! One of the things that appeals to me the most about this amazing - however huge - classic is the fact that it deals with such a large variety of emotions, and as a reader you feel like you are on a rollercoaster. Love, despair, doubt, jealousI read this book for the first time about 5 years ago and I loved it back then. I picked it up again last week and was very curious to see if it would still be amongst my favourite classics. Now that I have finished it, I can say with confidence that it is! One of the things that appeals to me the most about this amazing - however huge - classic is the fact that it deals with such a large variety of emotions, and as a reader you feel like you are on a rollercoaster. Love, despair, doubt, jealousy, happiness, insecurity are only a fracture of those emotions and I love it! Tolstoy shows you the backside of the medal when it comes to love, and he shows us how many people it affects when you suddenly fall in love with a person that you shouldn't be in love with. Even though Anna Karenina is the main character in this book, she's not my favourite character. That one goes to Levin who is a very thoughtful and considerate man, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his opinions. This book has some of my favourite scenes in it which often kept me at the edge of my seat. It also has one of the most horrorful scenes in it that I've ever read in my whole life, and rereading it was just as horrifying as the first time around. I have nothing but praising words for this book, and if you have any interest at all in reading it I sincerely hope that you will do so!...more

Ana DíazFor my it was the same; I was more into Levin than Anna. But what I love most about this book is how complex the characters were. I was always changinFor my it was the same; I was more into Levin than Anna. But what I love most about this book is how complex the characters were. I was always changing my opinion about Anna going from a total hate to love her and understand why she behaved the way she did....more
Jan 05, 2015 02:38PM

helen the bookowlYes, exactly! I didn't even think of it that way, but my opinions about Anna did change quite frequently! :)
Jan 05, 2015 08:09PM

When the Russian elite first read this idyll to their vanity, they must have fallen headlong into the reflecting pool right after Narcissus. For now, you see, not only are they rich and powerful, but according to Tolstoy they’re also supremely virtuous. The theme of this book does the trick.

Say a painter decides to do a Madonna and Child. Looking around, he frowns as he sees that this subject has already been painted thousands of times in every possible way over the ages. To stand out, he decideWhen the Russian elite first read this idyll to their vanity, they must have fallen headlong into the reflecting pool right after Narcissus. For now, you see, not only are they rich and powerful, but according to Tolstoy they’re also supremely virtuous. The theme of this book does the trick.

Say a painter decides to do a Madonna and Child. Looking around, he frowns as he sees that this subject has already been painted thousands of times in every possible way over the ages. To stand out, he decides to paint the biggest, baddest Madonna and Child ever. Such is Tolstoy’s approach to the book’s theme, an admiring homage to God, family and class.

Though the author paints on a sprawling canvas, this theme handcuffs the plot, which gets so predictable that it can be seen hundreds of pages in advance more or less what will happen. This same sprawl handcuffs character development because the characters have to be all bad or all good in order to make the author’s point. So the book needs exemplary writing in order to work.

Here, however, Tolstoy never really trusts us to extract the message from his story. He tends to spell it out for us in case we didn’t get it the first time. After a few promising paragraphs, or pages, the prose gets eclipsed by remarks better suited to religious tracts, the kinds with cartoon crosses and all caps, and a penchant for showing up anonymously in public places. As a result, too much of the author can be seen and not enough of his story.

Further damaging the narrative is the laughable misogyny by which the Stepford-wife females make fools of themselves. At one point, for example, three upper class women victoriously demonstrate to a dazzled peasant cook that their recipe makes the tastiest jam. All through the book, the corset-yanking writer pulls out every cliché, right down to the hooker with a heart of gold who, mortified by her own scarlet shame, literally (with a shawl) effaces herself before a ruling-class woman of virtue and promptly exits the stage after a disgraceful cameo.

We’d have a veritable encyclopedia of sexism except that these caricatures must in turn compete with more subtle excoriations of liberals. The eponymous Anna, her eyes glittering, showcases the step-by-step descent into nihilism that liberalism causes, abetted by freethinkers and possibly even by atheists. Though more subtle, this condemnation is still much too obvious to the reader.

Choking on dogma, the story scrapes bottom awhile. But luckily, about page 700, the author drags the manuscript off the mortuary table and applies shock. Over the next 240 pages, he tones down the agitprop, and Levin’s generally well written epiphany in the last 60 pages shoves this Frankenstein past the finish line.

The author tries to mine the same vein as Dostoevsky, another religious conservative. But where Dostoevsky succeeds brilliantly, Tolstoy fizzles. The urge to moralize so impedes the narrative flow that it ruins the effect. What’s left is an archipelago of excellent prose floating on a pond of unctuous treacle.

I wanted to give this novel at least some credit for these stretches of good writing. But sadly, the distractions in the writing conspired with a predictable plot and monochromatic characters to turn this book into a train wreck.

JoiceI've never been so excruciatingly bored at at wedding, as I was at Kitty and Levin's wedding. Far too many details. And how about Levin's dying brotheI've never been so excruciatingly bored at at wedding, as I was at Kitty and Levin's wedding. Far too many details. And how about Levin's dying brother? I enjoyed the story, but it didn't need to be that long....more
Apr 15, 2014 07:26PM

In front of me a glittering pond of rough oceanic waters protesting in silence in apparent stillness. Only the gentle swaying of casual waves crackling with the briny droplets of condensed breeze preludes the forthcoming storm. For below the surface, swirling undercurrents swell like lungs breathing in air of confusion and exhale the sea-secrets of the human soul.Things are not what they seem and Anna Karenina is not only the doomed love story of a woman trapped in her own mind whose life is ensIn front of me a glittering pond of rough oceanic waters protesting in silence in apparent stillness. Only the gentle swaying of casual waves crackling with the briny droplets of condensed breeze preludes the forthcoming storm. For below the surface, swirling undercurrents swell like lungs breathing in air of confusion and exhale the sea-secrets of the human soul.Things are not what they seem and Anna Karenina is not only the doomed love story of a woman trapped in her own mind whose life is enslaved by social chauvinism. The Tolstoyan whirlpools of labyrinthine connections defy boundaries of pure fiction and transcend genre, presenting a series of events so naturally told that the novel seems to unfold as plotlessly and accidentally as life itself. If “War and Peace” was a chronicle about the power of individual free will and the effect of dormant forces brought about by people in the outcome of history, Anna Karenina arises in substance as a double edged tragedy nestled in family life where suffering and unhappiness are presented as intrinsic traits of mankind, which finds itself in continuous conflict with the moral equilibrium epitomized by the harmony of the natural world.

“They have no conception of what happiness is, and they do not know that without love there is no happiness or unhappiness for us, for there would be no life.” (p.181)

Tolstoy crowns the first chapter of the novel with the epigram “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”, empathizing the fallibility of the human condition to make moral judgements and find the required spiritual stability to achieve the pinnacle of happiness. The quest is an arduous one and three unhappy families embody Tolstoy’s colliding thoughts on controversial issues such as the already decaying bourgeois class, the foundations of dogmatic religion or the political and historical events of the time, spicing it up with a long list of secondary characters that complements the vivid mosaic of the 19thC Russia.Through brief dramatic chapters, which combine narrative, description and a nuanced internal monologue of the characters, Tolstoy makes of the reader a participant rather than a distanced observer of his story and introduces the keystone familiar units and love triangles that will serve as allegories to transmit his macro views on the world.

Anna’s universe turns around her beloved son Serezha until she crosses paths with Captain Vronsky and an ensuing obsessive and irrepressible passion blinds logic and reason, propelling her to elope with the man she loves with feverish abandon and to forsake her son and a respected position as wife of Alexei Karenin, a highly respected government minister. Anna’s remorse and Karenin’s magnanimity in forgiving the unforgivable with his generous benevolence crushes her mercilessly, provoking a moral breakdown and a spiritual duality that Anna disguises with addictive love for a man who fails to understand her needs and prioritizes his social status and career over her distorted devotion. “But there is another one in me as well, and I am afraid of her. She fell in love with the other one, and I wished to hate you but could not forget her who has before. ” (p.406)

Constantine Levin, an agnostic nobleman who struggles against his inner contradictions to find equality and efficiency in the farming business, is ensnared by the idea of marriage, which for him is “the chief thing in life, on which the whole happiness of life depends.” (p.93) . Levin projects his idealized aspirations of a dignified country life on Kitty, a virginal and naïve young girl with unfaltering faith who proves to be the guiding star of Levin’s firmament which titillates unevenly with his existential doubts, after a first unpromising encounter with Captain Vronsky that nearly ruins their only chance to secure happiness.

Anna’s brother Steve Oblonsky, appears as the perfect counterpoint to Levin’s solemnity and soberness. Full of social charm and of cheerful disposition, Oblonsky is a self-indulgent urbanite who relishes the pleasures of the restaurant, of the gambling tables and of the bedroom. Married to Dolly, Kitty’s older sister and a strong willed and highly perceptive woman, Oblonsky claims his manly independence by committing sustained and inconsequential infidelities and is liked by everybody yet respected by no one.

The reader is plunged not just into the actions of these characters, but into the almost mystical overlapping of their inner feelings and the dialectic of their hearts in which Anna and Levin, who encapsulate Tolstoy's almost androgynous alter ego in perfect depiction of both his male and female grounding, become the two leading voices singing in alternating moral chorus that continually resonates in each other’s sections, creating a rich canvas painted in meticulous brushstrokes and symbolic glaze. Vronsky’s inability to control his faithful mare in a vertiginous racehorse echoes both Anna’s vulnerable position in an adulterous affair in the 19thC Russian society and Vronsky’s failed attempt to dominate such a delicate situation, triggering fatal events that will lead to inescapable tragedy.Colors impregnate the text enhancing significance; purple and dark denote sensuality and temptation while white and fair are related to purity and righteousness. A kaleidoscopic exultation of shades and tinges come vibrantly to life in the descriptions of the natural world, where Tolstoy unleashes his most lyrical yet unflourishing writing style, which presents a powerful contrast to the double morale of the Russian society and the artificiality of the city life that Tolstoy so much despises.

“The moon had lost all her brilliancy and gleamed like a little cloud in the sky. Not a single star was any longer visible. The marsh grass that had glittered like silver in the dew was now golden. The rusty patches were like amber. The bluish grasses had turned yellowish green.” (p. 588)

Trains and iron railways, which are pregnant with Tolstoy’s negative connotations about economic progress, arise as bad omens linked to the expansion of the railroad and industry as opposed to his views on agricultural philosophy which elevate farming to the ultimate honest lifestyle to attain spiritual fulfillment and justice.Trains also portrayed as metaphorical transportations in which Anna and Levin are carried away in a spiraling downfall, where life becomes a flurry of blurred images in the suffocating cabins of their minds until they reach the last station of death, which brings either hollow unease or disturbing calmness, depending on their spiritual strength to overcome the constant clashing between abstraction and reality. Two characters, one soul. A parallel journey, diverging fates. Life and Death, a two way mirror.

The storm has disquieted the waters which roar in furious thunderdarkness and contort in high sloped waves crowned by foamy curls, but below the surface there is now a perdurable and serene happiness that beats with bold love and firm conviction.

MariaWhat a marvelous review Dolors, I'm so impressed! I don't think I could write a review like this on a book that I claim to be my favorite one. I probaWhat a marvelous review Dolors, I'm so impressed! I don't think I could write a review like this on a book that I claim to be my favorite one. I probably read AK in that specific moment of my life, under certain experiences or those life circumstances that provoked such a deep impact on me as I read along. I love, I admire Anna's determination to follow that which she loves most. How many of us would have he courage to confront this social chauvinism? Still, way beyond my admiration for such a wonderful female character that Tolstoy offer us, Levin was my favorite character to follow as well as his quest to understand what happiness consists of. A quest I also wish to comprehend....more
Jun 18, 2014 12:59PM

DolorsMaria wrote: "What a marvelous review Dolors, I'm so impressed! I don't think I could write a review like this on a book that I claim to be my favoritMaria wrote: "What a marvelous review Dolors, I'm so impressed! I don't think I could write a review like this on a book that I claim to be my favorite one. I probably read AK in that specific moment of my life,..."

How funny Maria! I could have written your lines above as I also was more drawn to Levin's spiritual struggles and his utopian view of the world than to tormented Anna and her unbearable guilt, product of social pressure and her conscience. But that's why Tolstoy is such a great writer, because he manages to delineate both male&female characters as if in flesh and bone while creating this intricate psychological map of connections that bond them together, like in real life. Thank you for stopping by to read, for your kind words and for sharing your thoughts on this epic masterpiece! :)...more
Jun 19, 2014 01:22AM

There are two problems with reading anything by Leo Tolstoy. 1) That guy seriously needed an editor with a forceful personality, as his most famous books are far too long. 2) It's nearly impossible to keep the characters apart, because they all have something like 10 different names depending on the situation and social setting (this is true of much of Russian literature, though for me it's worst by far with Tolstoy).

I don't remember much about this book, to be honest, as I read it in the summerThere are two problems with reading anything by Leo Tolstoy. 1) That guy seriously needed an editor with a forceful personality, as his most famous books are far too long. 2) It's nearly impossible to keep the characters apart, because they all have something like 10 different names depending on the situation and social setting (this is true of much of Russian literature, though for me it's worst by far with Tolstoy).

I don't remember much about this book, to be honest, as I read it in the summer of 1998. I do remember that by less than halfway through I didn't want to finish it, and I only did finish it through sheer force of will (I have this thing about finishing books I've started). So I didn't want to read half of it and I couldn't keep straight who anyone was...why the hell did I initially give this 2 stars? Gotta downgrade it to 1....more

CollinHis doodles are probably more enjoyable than this. Look, if you want a review that's more than my opinion, there are professionals who review books foHis doodles are probably more enjoyable than this. Look, if you want a review that's more than my opinion, there are professionals who review books for a living. I personally did not enjoy it, that is all....more
Dec 15, 2012 08:22PM

GemmaI totally get that about the characters....I only realised quite near the end that I was reading about the same person but with a different name :( itI totally get that about the characters....I only realised quite near the end that I was reading about the same person but with a different name :( it made the whole book very confusing and very difficult to finish...more
Jul 24, 2014 09:25AM

To me, Anna Karenina felt like the slow destruction of a woman.Anna is a respectable Saint Petersburg woman.Married, a son, and unmistakable wealth.She's strong and decisive--at least at the beginning.That's all until she meets Alexey Vronsky.She falls into this spiral of passion; she leaves her husband and her son, to live it at the fullest.But this only worsen her situation, that becomes more and more unstableThis is obviously a masterpiece, no point in denying it.

[There may be spoilers ahead]

To me, Anna Karenina felt like the slow destruction of a woman.Anna is a respectable Saint Petersburg woman.Married, a son, and unmistakable wealth.She's strong and decisive--at least at the beginning.That's all until she meets Alexey Vronsky.She falls into this spiral of passion; she leaves her husband and her son, to live it at the fullest.But this only worsen her situation, that becomes more and more unstable, until she can't bear it anymore.

It took me ten full days to read this book, and I loved it.First of all, I liked the characters.Not in the sense that they all had good sides. In fact, I liked them because they all had bad sides.I appreciated how Tolstoy was able to create full characters, with depth, flaws, and ideals.They all had their story to tell, their emotions to express.Not many authors are actually able to do that with significant results.But let's zoom on each charater:

Anna: Well. It's really hard for me to express how I feel about Anna.At times I admired her, while at others I loathed her.She is basically a strong woman, at least at the beginning.She knows her beauty and how to use it. That's how she makes her first big impression on Vronsky.Going on with the book, though, Tolstoy started showing her flaws as well.One of the things that left me speechless was Anna leaving her son. I don't know how she could have possibly done that.I was horrified. At first.But at the same time, I was trying to find ways to defend her.She already was expecting another child, this time from Vronsky.Plus, she didn't love her husband, and he obviously didn't love her, but only cared for his reputation.So is what she did really wrong? Surely, in a way. But in another, she left one son, but she brought another up and made Vronky and herself happy.Leave one, take two.I don't know. I'm.. undecided on this point.

Something else I have to note about Anna is her childish reactions at times during the book.How she would only want Vronsky to care of her and nothing else, and how she would pout when she didn't get his full attention.She undoubtedly had, at least at times, her reasons to do that, which I'm going to discuss in the paragraph about Vronsky, but still. It was unnerving.

Next point is Anna's death.It "disappointed" me, if you concede me the word.She kept telling herself how she was sick and tired of this situation, of not ever knowing what to do, and how to behave.And I understood. Really, I did.THAT I would have accepted as possible reason for her suicide.But at the very last, she clearly admits she's doing that mostly to make Vronsky feel guilty, and that shocked me.What good can it do to you, if you're not even there to see it?She took her own life only to have a little revenge.How could she have done that?Here I was speechless again.

All in all Anna's character was interesting.I didn't love her, didn't hate her. Her actions were stupid and intriguing and shocking all at the same time. I was positively curious about her.

Vronsky.At first, I loved his character.But what Tolstoy did with the other characters, he did with him too, and I soon started seeing his flaws.Vronsky is a strong man. He wants to enjoy himself, he doesn't think of marriage and, in simple words, he takes life easy.That changes when he meets Anna. Their encounter changes both their lives, and consequently other people's lives, too.He sees in her what he had never seen in any other woman. Her strenght, her poise, her beauty, her composed figure. A woman that can get whatever she wants, and knows that.Vronsky is raptured by her, he can't stop thinking about her.His infatuation soon becomes something bigger, an overwhelming passion that doesn't give him rest.

During their affair, when Anna still lives with her husband and no one publicly knows of their commitment, I liked Vronsky.But, when they leave St. Petersburg and start living together, then I started noticing his bad side, too.He declares he has given up everything for Anna, but does want his independence. He says she's not thinking of him, that she's immature.What he doesn't get, is that Anna is the one who gave everything up for the sake of their relationship.While he can still have fun with his friends, be invited over other people's houses, and enjoy social life in the upper classes, she is reclused in her own home.It's NOT true that "she doesn't have friends", as he says.She does.Only, she's lacking REAL friends, people that despite her current situation and social position would still ignore people's talking and invite Anna to their houses, without fearing of being seen with her.Except for Dolly and a few mentions, nobody cares to see her now.So she is obliged to stay at home. Always.Apparently Vronsky does not understand this SLIGHT fact.He is being selfish, and he doesn't even realize it.This adds up to the already cold behavior he's having towars Anna, that will eventually drive to her death.

I liked his character too. You know, there's a difference between liking a character and liking WHO the character is. I didn't sympathize with Vronsky, but he was intereting enough. It was cool knowing him, to put it blandly.It's in human nature to make mistakes, after all. He did. I think he learned from them in the end. Good.

Levin: whoa oa oa, Levin.HE is fantastic.He is a real man, so to say.He's in love with Kitty, he loves her no matter what.Theirs is the truest relationship of the book, I loved their sincerity and their sweetness.Levin has his own ideals, and he's not willing to give them up or even think about changing them.He is a honest, simple man. He doesn't feel comfortable in the city life, because he thinks people there are fake and shallow. He's not exactly wrong.He is able to forgive and forget. Proof of that is his never-fading love for Kitty, that kept being there even after Kitty's "story" with Vrosnky and the shame and humiliation she'd put him through.Levin is good, humble, down-to-earth. I sincerely liked his character in every way.Even his unreasonable jealousy. (:

I'm stopping here. I'm not going to go all over the characters, one after one.Though I have to say, Kitty was a bit of a stereotype. It was really weird and depressing at times, what with her always being good, and gentle, and kind-hearted, and what a bore.But anyway.

The writing was spectacular.It flew. Page after page, words were flying, I was dazed, in a good way. It wasn't like "classic Classics." There was so much happening, so many things to say. Not even the descriptions were boring. It really took you into the story, into Levin's manor, into Stiva's house in Moscow.I was amazed.A billion congratulations to this terrific author.

---

In the end Anna Karenina is a double-story.On one side, it tells of the destruction of Anna, who goes from being a respectable mistress, to a miserable woman; who chooses death is better than her life as it has become.On the other side, it's the story of Levin, who goes from a miserable life, only devoted to his work, to a happy married life with the woman he's in love with.Kind of paradoxical.

HollyExactly the reason i enjoyed Anna Karenina. However, with the childish way Anna acts sometimes, i think its to satisfy her need for attention and compExactly the reason i enjoyed Anna Karenina. However, with the childish way Anna acts sometimes, i think its to satisfy her need for attention and companionship....more
Aug 21, 2012 09:50AM

ElenaHolly wrote: "Exactly the reason i enjoyed Anna Karenina. However, with the childish way Anna acts sometimes, i think its to satisfy her need for atteHolly wrote: "Exactly the reason i enjoyed Anna Karenina. However, with the childish way Anna acts sometimes, i think its to satisfy her need for attention and companionship."

In Anna Karenina there are multiple examples in which one love is fostered at the expense of another. On the one hand the reader clearly sees the wrong being done and rails against it, but if a moment of further reflection is indulged, we wonder if we too might not have done the same. Should true love be grasped at any cost? What price is too high?

However, Tolstoy didn't just write a tragic romance, he had social issues he wanted to discuss...and discuss he diAnna, oh Anna...what have you done?!

In Anna Karenina there are multiple examples in which one love is fostered at the expense of another. On the one hand the reader clearly sees the wrong being done and rails against it, but if a moment of further reflection is indulged, we wonder if we too might not have done the same. Should true love be grasped at any cost? What price is too high?

However, Tolstoy didn't just write a tragic romance, he had social issues he wanted to discuss...and discuss he did. Interesting? Yes. Especially interesting to Russians at the time? Absolutely. But the length of these diversions is distracting to the main plot and for that reason the whole doesn't feel as flawless a novel as some great novelists claim it to be. Perhaps they're right, but that's subjective opinion.

Melodrama occasionally rears it's head and some have called this nothing but a big old soap opera. Well if that's so maybe I need to start watching some daytime tv....more

Jason KoivuJane wrote: "You're doing it the right way. I mean, you can't really appreciate Great Expectations until you're old enough to look back at what you miJane wrote: "You're doing it the right way. I mean, you can't really appreciate Great Expectations until you're old enough to look back at what you might have done if you'd been misled as Pip was...! Or Othello..."

I agree. Some of the books we were meant to read as teenagers have subject matter that only an adult who's been through a bit of life can truly understand. On the other hand, I feel I missed my opportunity to read other books that play better to a younger audience, for instance something like Catcher in the Rye....more
Nov 24, 2012 09:02AM

JaneAh...A Separate Peace? Death Be Not Proud? The Chosen? A Prayer for Owen Meaney? I'll stop..
Nov 24, 2012 11:20AM

At the end of Gogol's Dead Souls a Troika gallops off leaving the author to ask with a flourish where it is speeding off to. Gogol on his death bed was struck by a severe case of religion and had the rest of the novel put on the fire (a few pages were rescued), but symbolically, as a question about Russia and which direction the country should be travelling towards the image hangs over the literature and politics of nineteenth century Russia, above all perhaps in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

The IdeoAt the end of Gogol's Dead Souls a Troika gallops off leaving the author to ask with a flourish where it is speeding off to. Gogol on his death bed was struck by a severe case of religion and had the rest of the novel put on the fire (a few pages were rescued), but symbolically, as a question about Russia and which direction the country should be travelling towards the image hangs over the literature and politics of nineteenth century Russia, above all perhaps in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

The Ideological NovelTolstoy claimed that he had constructed great arches into this novel. No one has ever managed to find them, but what is clear is the clear choice the author lays out before us in this highly ideological novel. One the right hand is the good couple, Kitty and Levin, whose lives (entirely coincidentally of course) are modelled on Tolstoy's own marriage. They live in the countryside. They are close to the core of 'true Russianness', they farm in a Russian style and Levin at least is aware of the beauty of the natural world. While on the left hand is the road to perdition, the moral corruption of western Europe, adulterous women, Saint Petersburg life, drugs and steam trains. This road, we are shown through the life of Anna Karenina, ends in suicide, and by extension is leading the nation towards self-destruction.

But as a novel it more or less works, largely because Anna herself is a sympathetic character. Since her husband is not portrayed as anything other than a withered, joyless individual her longing for happiness is entirely convincing. The writing, in scenes like Levin mowing (one man, two man, three men and their dog...) or duck hunting, the horse race or Anna's time in Italy, is beautiful and in the case of Anna works against the ideological drive of the novel (apparently, but then if evil were not attractive..!). But ultimately for Tolstoy an upper class woman outside of marriage, having a child and therefore a sexual relationship with a man, is a problem and one that can only be resolved through her death. The resolution of that woman problem through her death is hardly unique to Tolstoy, it is the fall back answer for Dickens in Bleak House too. Some simple, natural occurrences were apparently far too scandalous to be even contemplated in print.

The Agricultural NovelThe story of the 'Russian' couple, Kitty and Levin is in contrast to the 'western' relationship of Anna and Vronsky. On the one hand destruction running on fixed rails and powered by steam runs over lives even as it runs over the landscape. Mechanical, alien and above all foreign the correct direction answer is meant to lie in the countryside. Early in the novel Oblomov the titular hero has a dream of timeless unchanging life in the countryside. Oblomov (ie Mr Cloud if we loosely rendered him into English) refuses to change, the wisdom of not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater becomes the folly of not even wanting to part with the bathwater. This is what Tolstoy advances in Anna Karenina as a seriously considered idyll.

What we get in Anna Karenina is a fetishisation of communal agriculture and working with hand tools, most vividly realised as Levin symbolically and literally finds his rhythm as he learns how to swing his scythe and mow. As a literary set piece it is fantastic. As an idealisation of a form of live deeply Romantic and has had, continues to have a deep appeal for the extreme left and far right in Russian politics. But practical agriculture it is deeply misleading. Levin is a stand in for Tolstoy (Tolstoy was a firm believer in 'write what you know'), but in real life Tolstoy's agriculture was subsided by his literary output (actively managed by his wife who did her best to retain control over printing rights) and after Tolstoy's death the family house had to be sold to service the families debts, the large wooden structure was disassembled like flat pack furniture and carted off.

For both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky the shock of Russia's awkward transitioning from confident gendarme of Europe to desperately industrialising and becoming more like western Europe with new fangled representative institutions and jury trials was appallingly vivid. A idealised partly spiritual, entirely nationalistic identity was the answer, yet as a result Tolstoy's peasants are less realistic than Turgenev's in Sketches from a Hunter's Album. Then on the eve of the emancipation of the serfs the condition of the peasants was the great problem holding back Russia, however two decades later the problem has become the solution. The irony of the peasants induced by the promise of a barrel of vodka to build a school in Chekhov's My Life is unimaginable in Tolstoy. For him the glass of vodka for the mowers is part of the natural order of the countryside. The successful estate management of the Yusupovs or the successful non-communal small farms of southern Russia and the Ukraine was not what Tolstoy was interested in. Instead he sought to cleave to the romance of the inefficient (in the sense of not being market orientated) form of communal agriculture in which Master and man worked together as a unit. Here was something safe and in his view more worth while than everything symbolised by the steady puffing locomotive.

The Horse RaceThe first time I read I imagined Vronsky as a pretty man and therefore contemptible like a foppish star of the silver screen (it is true that I am prejudiced, but at least occasionally I am honest about it). The second time with surprise I noticed the description of his red neck and hairiness. This was somebody with a real physical presence. Somebody suddenly like me, red and hairy. Karenina choosing between his brisk redness and her husband's washed out greyness has an immediacy and a naturalness about it. The sensuality of the novel, whether mowing the meadow, hunting ducks or washing before the horse race is one of it's strengths.

The horse race is one of the high lights of this aspect of the novel. Visceral, immediate but also crudely symbolising the relationship between Anna Karenina and her lover, the Guards Officer Vronsky. Anna watches the race from a socially acceptable distance - she is on account of her adultery not someone who can be received in polite society. Vronsky rides the filly, trained by another man, only to feel her back break at an awkward jump as they are within sight of the finish line. He survives, she doesn't. The suffering of another is a public spectacle. The metaphor is crude, the whole set piece sharp and vivid.

Within the widely separated covers of Anna Karenina, one of Henry James' "loose baggy monsters" if ever there was there are slimmer novellas about relationships, the state of agriculture, the physicality of life and love that are crying to be let out. Are the parts more than the sum of the whole? Or does the physical mass add to the reading experience?...more

Jan-MaatRakhi wrote: "Great introduction,Jan-Maat. It reminds me that the picture presented by Troika hangs so clearly in The Brothers Karamazov too."

You canRakhi wrote: "Great introduction,Jan-Maat. It reminds me that the picture presented by Troika hangs so clearly in The Brothers Karamazov too."

You can apply that image to quite a few Russian novels of that period, the question of what kind of country Russia should be and what kind of people Russians should be is there in Turgenev and Goncharov's Oblomov as well. I think the next generation of writers settled down a bit and had different concerns!...more
Jul 03, 2014 07:13AM

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” One of the most famous lines in the history of literature. A phrase that sets the tone for the events that unfolds in this massive tome from one of Russian’s most famous novelist, Leo Tolstoy. This author is mostly famous for his double fisted pair of epics which feature a panoramic view of 19th century Russian society. This book, Anna Karenina rests in one hand as a tragic love story whereas the other complex war ep“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” One of the most famous lines in the history of literature. A phrase that sets the tone for the events that unfolds in this massive tome from one of Russian’s most famous novelist, Leo Tolstoy. This author is mostly famous for his double fisted pair of epics which feature a panoramic view of 19th century Russian society. This book, Anna Karenina rests in one hand as a tragic love story whereas the other complex war epic, War and Peace. Both of these books have become household names in the world of classic fiction. Both have experienced a reputation of being both equally loved and feared by those readers who have braved the 1000 pages and the long term investment that each of these novels demand.

Anna Karenina is the first of Tolstoy’s novels that I have read. Although the main plot is fairly simple, it is one of the most complex novels I have ever read in terms of characterization and morality. The book is a quintessential example of realism in literature so the true strength lies in the complexity of its characters and its themes. Anna Karenina discussed many themes such as love, marriage, jealousy, infidelity, economics, art, and politics. It really is all there. It leaves very few areas untouched. I believe many themes are still relevant in today’s society. It really presents an interesting study of the challenges of being human.

The plot follows the personal life of two families. One is in the early stages of creation; the other is on the verge of destruction. Both are inter-twined and both are presented with the same problems. Like the characters in this novel, one of the most important goals in anyone’s life is to achieve happiness. The definition of happiness varies from person to person. However, in many people’s lives happiness is something ambiguous. Many people do now know what makes them happy. Many believe that money, love, power, or a healthy family are the ingredients that bring them a sense of happiness. However, when some of these goals are achieved, a person may still feel as if they have not fully achieved happiness even though they have everything that they have always wanted in life. The same feelings are experienced in this book. I have never read a novel that had more realistic characters and been more relevant to the challenges of modern life today than Anna Karenina....more

This was an amazing book. Shakespearean in its ability to create living, breathing characters who walk off the page. I never doubted for a moment that Levin, and Anna, and surprisingly, Oblonsky were people that I might bump into on the streets of Moscow back in 1850 or whenever the book was written.But, really, the reason the characters seem so real is that they are not restricted to their time. Their concerns and feelings represent the human dilemma and it is easy for me to empathize with themThis was an amazing book. Shakespearean in its ability to create living, breathing characters who walk off the page. I never doubted for a moment that Levin, and Anna, and surprisingly, Oblonsky were people that I might bump into on the streets of Moscow back in 1850 or whenever the book was written.But, really, the reason the characters seem so real is that they are not restricted to their time. Their concerns and feelings represent the human dilemma and it is easy for me to empathize with them - even though I am product of our mad, technological times. After all, huge changes are occurring in Tolstoy's Russia, fighting as it is with the adoption of a materialistic, perhaps nihilistic view of life. Perhaps this struggle is not so different from our own. I understand many things about the book, the relationship that evolves between Levin and Kitty - wonderful, by the way - which is the experience I have had when the illusions of romance drop away and you begin to know the person as they really are and to realize that they have a whole world locked away in them that you can seldom touch. When you love, you carry a sense of that (as does Kitty - natural creature that she is) but often it cannot be expressed in words. Tolstoy has caught that well, I think.I can understand Oblonksy and I think the characterization is so concise and brilliant. People like that (or are they personnae?) do exist - I've met them and I envy the easy way in which they sail, untroubled, through life.But Anna... I remain puzzled and annoyed by her. I don't know if anyone can enlighten me. What exactly is missing for her? She finds her passion, her love and it is not enough, it cannot fulfil. Is it simply too isolating? She finds some intellectual fulfillment when time hangs heavy on her. Is it because she has a spiritual, our soul level (like Levin) that cannot ultimately be realized through erotic love? Is it because she cannot hold the fascination of a man who desires to be of the world as much as, or more than, he desires her? Is that why she resorts to opium? Is it really because of the societal strictures (misogyny even?) and the inability of her and Vronsky to forge a life together that is accepted by others? Would she have been happy, say, if she had met Vronsky instead of "the other Alexei", had married Vronsky in order to have his children? Is it because she has been disloyal to Sergei, her former and, other, great passion? Is that what causes her to propel herself to destruction?I can't resolve it in my mind and have spent some hours looking about for answers since I finished the book. Perhaps there is no easy solution and perhaps it is an amalgam of the issues (and more?) that I have listed above.Finally, I was glad that the novel ended with Levin's realization (I guess one can't call it a discovery since he is fully understanding what was already in his soul) that perfection is not possible. One can strive to be a good soul and it is the striving that becomes the purpose and satisfaction of life. We'll still have to display all our warts.Is that what Anna failed to see?...more

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I finished this last night, but didn't write a review then because I needed some time to think over the entire book and decide exactly what I wanted to say about it.

I'm going to start with a quick plot summary, because before I read this I didn't really know what Anna Karenina was actually about. So, in brief: Oblonsky has cheated on his wife Dolly but he convinces his sister Anna to talk to her and they don't get divorced; meanwhile Oblonsky's friend Levin is in love with Dolly's sister KittyI finished this last night, but didn't write a review then because I needed some time to think over the entire book and decide exactly what I wanted to say about it.

I'm going to start with a quick plot summary, because before I read this I didn't really know what Anna Karenina was actually about. So, in brief: Oblonsky has cheated on his wife Dolly but he convinces his sister Anna to talk to her and they don't get divorced; meanwhile Oblonsky's friend Levin is in love with Dolly's sister Kitty but she wants to marry Vronsky who is in love with Anna who is already married to Karenin but goes ahead and has an affair with Vronsky anyway so he rejects Kitty but it's okay because she marries Levin anyway and Levin has these two brothers and one is a drug addict and the other is a stuffy author and they don't do much but they're around a lot and then Anna leaves her husband but he won't give her a divorce and won't let her keep their son so she's very depressed about that and Dolly is the only one who will talk to her even though Oblonsky also works hard to convince Karenin to divorce Anna.

Everyone got that? It really could not be simpler.

Okay, on to the review part: I'm giving this book three stars because it seemed like the fairest rating, considering that some parts of this book deserved a five-star rating and some parts deserved one star. Everything with Anna and Vronsky was really interesting and amazing - I loved Anna so much, and I really wanted to be friends with her. She was lovely. Unfortunately, she and her lovah had to compete with Kitty and Levin, the other important couple of the story. And good god are they boring. Levin owns a farm, which means we get chapters upon chapters of nothing but him babbling on about farming techniques and how nobody does the job right and what he wants to do to improve his farm. Also, the book should have ended right after Anna killed herself, or at least ended by talking about how Vronsky was dealing with it. But that doesn't happen. In the last thirty-some pages of the book, Anna throws herself under a train, and for the rest of the book we get a little mention of how Vronsky has volunteered to fight in some war, but the rest of it is all about Levin and his farm and local politics and his spiritual crisis and OH MY GOD I DON'T CARE. Once I had read two chapters about Levin after Anna's death, I flipped through the rest of the book, saw that he was the sole focus of the rest of the story, and almost stopped reading. I could have, too, and I wouldn't have missed anything important. ...more

WarwickHow weird, I felt the exact opposite of you – I was far more interested in Kitty and Levin, so much so that I thought the book should have been calledHow weird, I felt the exact opposite of you – I was far more interested in Kitty and Levin, so much so that I thought the book should have been called Kitty Shcherbatskaya. However, I loved a lot of the bits that some people find boring – seeing how all the Russian aristos behave on a snipe shoot was just absolutely fascinating....more
May 11, 2013 12:17AM

SamHAHA THIS REVIEW MADE ME LAUGH SO HARD! Yeah I felt the opposite. For some reason I found Levin's farming and spiritual crisis very interesting whichHAHA THIS REVIEW MADE ME LAUGH SO HARD! Yeah I felt the opposite. For some reason I found Levin's farming and spiritual crisis very interesting which sounds really weird when I say it out loud :/ but honestly I couldn't care less about Anna and Vronsky once Anna goes into her decline...more
Feb 02, 2014 07:50AM

Levin, Levin, Levin, you are a conceited monkey. Why you worry so much?? Is it because you think your problems are bigger than everyone else's? Is it because you don't have enough to fill your days? I would think planting and harvesting would be enough to make a guy dog-tired at night. Dog-tired enough that his infernal mind would shutty uppy for even half a page. Or is it because you think your problems are greater than others'? That you as landowner are the sole decider of everyone else's fateLevin, Levin, Levin, you are a conceited monkey. Why you worry so much?? Is it because you think your problems are bigger than everyone else's? Is it because you don't have enough to fill your days? I would think planting and harvesting would be enough to make a guy dog-tired at night. Dog-tired enough that his infernal mind would shutty uppy for even half a page. Or is it because you think your problems are greater than others'? That you as landowner are the sole decider of everyone else's fate? Cause dude, your head is way way too big. You need to hold the air valve sideways (it's there, just behind your ear) and deflate that enormous ego you have. Just for giggles, lemme introduce you to Madam Karenina. Madam K's got some real problems. Yes, you might say, they are indeed first-world problems. She's not starving to death, dying in the street. But compared to you, buck, she's got problems. You might say, in your troublesome way, that Ms. Karenina brought her problems on herself. But would you concede that Ms. Karenina was trapped in a loveless marriage and who the hell wants to spend their life living in some kind of doldrums where nothing happens save slow, arduous stagnation? Oh yes, that's right, you're so full of yourself that you can't feel empathy for other people. That's right. Even though you made it abundantly clear over many an inner monologue, I forgot for a second. Maybe that's because you ramble so much I tended to tune you out. What's that? No, I don't think you cared about the peasants. In your arrogant way, I think you did believe that you cared about the peasants, but that's not the same thing. Would you agree? Of course you wouldn't. Well who asked you? Listen, Madam K. had some shit going on and it was far bigger than your shit. No, I don't care that yours was about the very fate of your everlasting soul. You're an ass so I don't care. Sue me. You didn't care about people so I don't care about your problems. Yeah, well as we say in the south, you can go butt a stump. No, wait, come back. I still have to tell you why Madam K's problems are so much bigger than yours. You like discussing philosophical issues right? Don't lie, I know you do. I listened to you try to argue them for half a book. Now sit down. I'll call your brother. You know Sergei could outwit you, hell, even Nicholai could outwit you on almost every (heck, every) occasion! What's Madam K's problem? Don't act like you don't know. You spent half the book avoiding her because you were so hung up about whether or not your wife actually loved you. You know what her problem is. Yes I know you were based on Tolstoy himself. I wasn't sure of that until my buddy Mary told me, but I had an inkling from all the farming you did. No, I don't think you expressed yourself as well as Tolstoy. Tolstoy, while making a boneheaded decision to give you spotlight status, is still a brilliant writer whose syntax, scenes, characters (yes, even you) all came to life before my very eyes. The man knew classes, both the poor and the aristocratic. You would do well to emulate him. Yes, I realize that's what you were trying to do. But what era? Were you Tolstoy in his 20s, 30s, maybe his 50s? Yes, I know you're 34 but I'm saying mentally, where are you? Well, to me you're a child. You fuss and whine and worry and kick a stone along the road and convince yourself that you're right about everything and everyone knows you're not. We all know it. Yes, even Kitty knows it. Kitty's a helluva lot smarter than you, btw. I just wanted you to know that. Look, can I take a break? You're wearing me out. I'm going to get some lunch. We'll continue this in a bit ---

Good lunch? Really? What'd you do then? Will you ever stop thinking? You'll drive yourself nuts. You really will. Have you read Salinger? Oh yeah, after your time. Right. Look, I ran into a buddy while I was out. Levin, this is my buddy, Mr. T Yes, like the letter T. "I pity da foo dat don't read dis cause it too long, foo." Mr. T enjoyed the book, Levin. He has a bit of a bone to pick with you. But he loved the writing. "I pity da foo dat don't like dis book, foo." See, what'd I tell ya? He loves it. Sit down, Mr. T. I was talking to Levin before - about what a self-righteous twit he is - and was going to ask him what he thought of Madam K's...predicament. "I pity da foo dat don't pity Madam K, foo." That's right. See, Levin, Mr. T and I have the same bone to pick so he thought he would come along, hang out, throw in his two cents if the mood struck. "I pity da foo dat don't got two cents, foo." But while I was out, I did find something that was sorta of positive about you, Levin. You won't know it since it's after your time, but all the existential writers who dabbled in fiction, there was quite a bit of your influence in them I think. They turned the pen inward upon themselves and pondered life's great questions - much like you did. But the thing was, Levin, they did it so much better than you and they thoroughly convinced me why I should care about what they were thinking. Did you know Ivan Ilyich? Just in name? Oh, okay. You don't know much about him? Tolstoy wrote about his death several years after writing about you, so I thought you may've heard of him. You and Ivan, I think you would have gotten along splendidly. Ivan was a confused guy too. While I appreciated his pondering - to an extent - I don't feel his pondering was sound. It felt forced. And I gotta tell ya, his was easier to digest because he shut the fuck up sometimes, you know? "I pity da foo dat don't know when to shut the fudge up, foo."

So. Anna, then? You what? Want a second? What, like in a duel? We're just talking. Yes, but Mr. T is only interjecting a little bit. He's - I know he has big muscles. That's not why I brought him. He's not going to hurt you. Alright, alright, who do you want? Vronsky!? That's the last person I figured you to pick. Maybe you're wilier than I thought. Ha, yeah, I know he can take a hit. But still, you guys will be a pair ---

Well if it isn't Vronsky. Man, I've got some words for you too, bucko. "I pity da foo dat don't calm down, foo." Okay, okay. See, he's here as much to calm me down as to -- never mind. Look Vronsky, what you did. The way you were. Well, you and Levin are more alike than you know. I see why Kitty... Do you see how Anna was put upon!? Why didn't you see how hard it was for her!? "I said, I pity da foo dat don't calm down, foo." Okay, okay. But didn't you see what you were doing to her? Oh yeah, wine and roses in the beginning. But isn't it always? Did you not see how hard her position was, though? She had a son, Vronsky. Don't you think that began to creep up on her? What she gave up for you? I don't even want to think about the kind of therapy her children will need. Yes, Karenin was a dick, too. Big ole lopsided dick. Needed Houdini to travel back in time to debunk all that trance shit. That was hilarious to Tolstoy to throw in, though. I do give him high marks for that. Great scene. Great writing. But you!! Gallivanting off to your men's club every chance you got, 'A man needs to be social,' you said, something like that, and Anna couldn't even go to a concert without an uproar. A simple concert! Yes, I know, society's as much to blame. But are you not a member of society? And you're a Count. Your words, as a 'man' would mean something. You could have said, "We're trying to procure a divorce but Karenin The Dick won't let us have one because he's got his own pettiness to deal with under the guise of a religious fervor." But nooo, you were too busy looking after Vronsky, what Vronsky needs. And and Levin - yes, we're back to you, again - are so much alike. Me, me, me.

Mr. T, I'm sorry but I really wanna hurt the both of them. Like really really bad. Both of these assholes had good women and neither of them treated them fairly - shut the fuck up, Levin, you were an asshole to the end. "Foo?" We have to beat some sense into them, Mr. T. It's the only way they'll understand anything. They were too good to sully themselves for the ones they professed to love. It's the only way. On three. Ready?

One. Two. Three.

Urmph.

Good one, Mr. T!

Ugh.

Zow.

"I pity da foo dat don't know when to quit, foo!"

Ping.

Snap.

"Pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga Choo-choo?"

Boing.

Sprung.

"Damn, man, like getting run over by a freight train...ughrmm.

"Ha ha ha ha ha ha."

Woosh.

Yeeeeeee.

Wait, wait, hang on. Wait. Stop. Let's just stop a minute. Don't get me wrong, it feels fan-friggin-tastic to wail on you guys. But I'm gotta stop a minute and duff my cap to Mr. Tolstoy again for creating such realistic characters for me to grapple with, to love, to loathe, to live with for the last several months. Mr. T, watch out for Vronsky. He's liable to sucker punch while I do my monologue. Oh harsh you trap, Levin, you got center stage for at least 400 pages. Mr. Tolstoy, I think you are a terrific writer, and though I didn't always agree with your characters - especially the autobiographical one - you are one kickass writer. It was a pleasure just to read your sentences. It would be awesome to be able to speak to you in person, to pick your brain. "I pity da foo dat don't open his eyes, foo." What, Mr. T? "I pity da foo dat don't know what T stand for, foo." What are you saying, Mr. T?? "Look, do I have to spell it out, fool? T. Tolstoy. Duh." Say what? "Reincarnation, man. Ever heard of it?" Uh. Yeah. "So, you liked the book?" Uh. Yeah. "Why are you lookin at me that way, foo?" I'm sorry, it's just a lot to wrap my head around. All this time...? "Yeah, foo." Mr. T---olstoy? Count? "Whatta ya say, foo, you feel like an ice cream?" Uh. Yeah. Erm, you guys wanna come? Urmph. "I'll clean dem up later." Uh. Okay. "So you didn't like Levin, huh?" ......more

OK people...This is the BBE (best book ever)...I think I’ve read this three times; on my own and once the classroom setting. Though it’s famous for the first line, (“All happy families are alike…”) I actually have a tough time getting through the first 400 pages (JUST KIDDING!). Actually, this is the type of book that you love for 100 pages, hate for 100 pages, love for 100 pages, etc. I can see how this could deter readers, but I’ve found that the love/hate dynamic keeps me interested and makesOK people...This is the BBE (best book ever)...I think I’ve read this three times; on my own and once the classroom setting. Though it’s famous for the first line, (“All happy families are alike…”) I actually have a tough time getting through the first 400 pages (JUST KIDDING!). Actually, this is the type of book that you love for 100 pages, hate for 100 pages, love for 100 pages, etc. I can see how this could deter readers, but I’ve found that the love/hate dynamic keeps me interested and makes this very re-readable.

Although Tolstoy named the novel after the character of Anna Karenina, her story (which centers on infidelity with Count Vronsky, who is quite possibly the most toolish man in literature, is really only one half of the book. This could have just as easily been titled, “Levin” after the other main character, a gentry land owner searching, like many of us, for love and the meaning of life. The sections centering on Levin and his family are definitely amazing and occasionally sublime. The stories of Levin and Anna Karenina do intertwine, along with about 1,000 other characters, so I suggest you read this version as it has a 'cast of characters' section, that while making you feel silly when you have to turn to it, is uber-handy. My slavic lit prof also said this is the best translation as of 2003, and I’ve read it in other translations and have noticed quite a difference.

Towards the end of the book there is a section when Levin walks through the fields of his home, looks at the stars, and has this moment of complete cosmic understanding. My description of this section is crap, but I’ve re-read this book just to get to this one paragraph alone....more

Marthathats funny you say had a tough time for the first 400 pages. I actually was barely interested and considered putting it down until about 400 pages ithats funny you say had a tough time for the first 400 pages. I actually was barely interested and considered putting it down until about 400 pages i started connectting with the characters....are you sure you're just kidding?...more
Oct 02, 2007 07:08AM

RobertI'm on page 384 now, so you've convinced me to keep going. I know exactly what you mean when you say you love it for 100 pages then hate it for 100 paI'm on page 384 now, so you've convinced me to keep going. I know exactly what you mean when you say you love it for 100 pages then hate it for 100 pages....more
Dec 19, 2012 01:33PM

The ball was only just beginning as Anna walked up the great staircase, flooded with light, and lined with flowers and footmen in powder and red coats. From the rooms came a constant, steady hum, as from a hive, and the rustle of movement; and while on the landing between trees the ladies gave last touches to their hair and dresses before the mirror, they heard from the ballroom the careful, distinct notes of the fiddles of the orchestrFor the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament round 2.

****

The ball was only just beginning as Anna walked up the great staircase, flooded with light, and lined with flowers and footmen in powder and red coats. From the rooms came a constant, steady hum, as from a hive, and the rustle of movement; and while on the landing between trees the ladies gave last touches to their hair and dresses before the mirror, they heard from the ballroom the careful, distinct notes of the fiddles of the orchestra beginning the first waltz. A beardless youth, in an exceedingly open waistcoat, straightening his white tie as he went, bowed to them, and after running by, came back to ask Anna for a quadrille, which she promised him. Although her dress, her coiffure, and all the preparations for the ball had cost Anna great trouble and consideration, at this moment she walked into the ballroom in her elaborate tulle dress over a pink slip as easily and simply as though all the rosettes and lace, all the minute details of her attire, had not cost her or her family a moment's attention, as though she had been born in that tulle and lace, with her hair done up high on her head, and a rose and two leaves on the top of it. It was one of Anna's best days. Her dress was not uncomfortable anywhere; her rosettes were not crushed nor torn off; her pink slippers with high, hollowed-out heels did not pinch, but gladdened her feet; and the thick rolls of fair chignon kept up on her head as if they were her own hair. Her bare shoulders and arms gave Anna a sense of chill marble, a feeling she particularly liked. Her eyes sparkled, and her rosy lips could not keep from smiling from the consciousness of her own attractiveness. She had scarcely entered the ballroom and reached the throng of ladies, all smiles and ribbons, when a mighty blow assailed her, blood burst from her earlobe and she collapsed straightway to the floor, amidst a swirl of consternation. All eyes turned to the assailant who was a prim looking young woman arrived lately from England. Her gown was plain but striking, with a design incorporating flashes of orange taffeta, which some of the ladies present had not seen before, and were keen to copy. A gentleman standing by removed the candlestick from the lady's gloved hand, or, in fact, she indifferently gave it to him. "How vicious, how vicious," cried many of the ladies thronging about Anna's prone form, attempting to stop the copious blood flow with tulle and valencienne. The beardless youth, in fine fury, leaped before the Englishwoman and demanded of her – "What treachery is this? In heaven's name, whence come you and whance this cruelty?" The lady cast her eyes about the enraged, brilliantly spangled assembly. "I believe you will find that whance is no word in any dictionary, neither in England nor Russia. I say this with a modicum of authority, grammar is one of the lessons I have had to teach. Sir, I have travelled many miles for this, and now it is done. She will rise no more –" poking Anna's outstretched leg which was slightly twitching – "but should she do so she will receive another buffet." "But what dispute had you with this lady?" said the young man, attempting, it appeared, to make some sort of inquiry as to the purpose of the assault. "And are you not aware there are rules society has laid down to resolve such, and that you may not ambush your adversary in such a manner, and what had this lady done to you at all, since you come from England?" Although she was of smallish stature the English woman drew up her head and stared him straight in the eye. "My name is Jane Eyre. You do not understand this matter at all. And I am no longer inclined to abide by men's rules."...more

This is primarily the story of Anna Karenina's troubled affair with Alexey Vronsky. It's also the story of Konstantin Levin's search for love and truth in society.

While reading this book, I kept wishing that I could just read a "good parts version" as William Goldman called The Princess Bride. I kept getting bogged down in Tolstoy's reflections, mostly through Levin's eyes, of how decadent, silly, redundant, and complicated life in the upper class of 19th-century Russian society was. There wouldThis is primarily the story of Anna Karenina's troubled affair with Alexey Vronsky. It's also the story of Konstantin Levin's search for love and truth in society.

While reading this book, I kept wishing that I could just read a "good parts version" as William Goldman called The Princess Bride. I kept getting bogged down in Tolstoy's reflections, mostly through Levin's eyes, of how decadent, silly, redundant, and complicated life in the upper class of 19th-century Russian society was. There would be pages and pages of a tangent that could have been an essay called "What's Wrong With Agriculture in Russia." I didn't care. There were also pages and pages of Levin watching an election and having no idea what was going on. If he didn't get it, there's no way that this 21st-century American woman is going to. Those parts just seemed to drag on and on and on.

But the story itself was beautifully written and really made me think. I'm all for women's rights, but I would catch myself thinking, "What a selfish, ungrateful woman!" And then I would think, "Well, if it weren't for women like Anna pushing the limits of acceptable behavior, you wouldn't enjoy the freedoms you do today." And then I'd go right back to thinking, "I can't stand her! She wants everything her way!" I'm not really exaggerating. I really had this internal dialog going on throughout almost every scene that featured Anna. I think part of the problem for me was that her husband was a good man, she just didn't love him. So I was torn between how Anna was hurting him and her quest for love.

I was worried about reading this, not necessarily because of the size, but because I wasn't sure how difficult it would be to understand. I really didn't have any problem with that. It was very readable-- except for when I was falling asleep during the tangents. The thing that really got me at first were all the names! I kept hearing that all the characters' names in Russian literature would get me confused, so I was sort of prepared, but I wasn't really expecting it to be as bad as it was. Almost every character, no matter how minor, was named. The major characters had several names and nicknames. It got so bad that I just had to laugh when I read that Levin had cows--cows!--named Pava, Berkoot, Hollandka, and a dog named Laska. The cows were never mentioned again. Ugh! But someone pointed me to Oprah's Book Club discussion of Anna Karenina. There was a character bookmark on there that I printed out and it helped tremendously. There were just a few spoilers on it though.

The ending was weak. Tolstoy built up and built up to this crashing climax, and then he spoiled it by rambling on for another twenty pages about Levin's search for faith. That really ruined the ending.

Overall, though, I don't regret reading this, but it was one of the very few books that left me wishing that I had found an abridged version....more

JG (The Introverted Reader)I hate to admit it, but I slept through most of that movie. :-/ It was gorgeously filmed but that's about all I remember.
Nov 24, 2013 05:02PM

TweedledumLOL! My husband booked tickets for "The Mousetrap " when we moved to near London and I fell asleep in that. Later we took my mother in law to see it aLOL! My husband booked tickets for "The Mousetrap " when we moved to near London and I fell asleep in that. Later we took my mother in law to see it and I fell asleep again! Though I think it was in a different place! Now I just keep taking the tablets! ( thyroid pills )

I thought I was going to really dislike Keira Knightly as Anna having struggled with her reading of Elizabeth Bennett but I actually thought she kind of captured the character very well. Of course the gorgeous costumes and sets helped. If you get the chance do watch it again! She comes across to me as someone who there's not much going on behind the eyes .... I mean Anna is screamingly stupid isn't she at times. I guess all I know is that I would NEVER risk losing any child of mine for the sake of a man....more
Nov 25, 2013 12:34AM

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider ToLev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.